I agree with the premise DT, but it will never happen. You would just make the civil rights lawyers richer than they already are.

i dunno, they can tell you when to cut your own grass. why not something important like this?

There is no F in way. Donttread, I wonder if you wouldn't be happier in a communist country? Oh well, we won't have to wait long. Give me a break.

Thought I'd beat you to it Treadly and chk chk bmp it up :} Maybe they'll microchip you all? I have no idea of my thoughts on this, but it's been an interesting read. We usually inherit a few of the NY laws here.

but drafter first the "free society" is an illusion. It's a corporitist society with laws designed to benefit megacorps.
Second, and this is important , driving is not a right. That's why they can make us wear seat belts, etc.. It's a privlegde. Therefore it's not Constitutionally protected and can be limited. Granted it should be state, not federally controlled. But then so should education, highways, drug laws, welfare, etc.
Bottom line is I have rights on the highway too .

Of course it's an illusion. None the less, I want to stop the bus and back it up. I will not support efforts to drive the bus faster. Are we OT yet?

Wow I should really really really stay quiet on this one.... Government should have no say in my words or actions unless I am infringing on someone else's freedom, safety, or pursuit of happiness. My driving is my driving - punish the offender and deter the offense with things like safety checks and education. If safety was the primary concern, maybe they ought to spend more time, effort, and money on an efficient public transportation system across the country.

DT "Driving is a privilege"? Says who, the government? Is riding my bike also a privilege? What if I put a motor on it? And now they are going to tell me I have to wear a helmet... oh except in those states where they have determined it is more costly to treat someone injured in an accident while wearing their helmet than it is to let them die helmetless. They don't make us wear helmets in Indiana - has nothing to do with safety.

It is the premise that bothers me. I am liberalist and laissez faire I guess.

All that said - I don't personally care if they put one of those in my car. I am an alcoholic and it may just keep others safe.

Ha.

Really? You wouldn't care, huh? Do you think you would rent, lease, or buy your unit outright? I guess they're pretty pricey.

Yes donttread we should let the government control every single aspect of our lives. Clearly, these people know better than we do.

Don't let the masses decide how to live! Don't give them the opportunity to act like responsible adults! They will do it wrong! They might hurt each other!

Drafter. I am an alcoholic. I have no plans to drink, but if I do relapse, there is a high likelihood I will drive drunk. I have never had a DUI, but your kids would be safer if there was one in my car. I am an alkie. My brother is not. He should not be required to have one in his car and he should not be required to pay for it.

Now, begin an argument about whether "sin tax" should pay for ALL cars to have these. Hell no. I should not pay for or be punished for an impending act of violence to which I did not directly contribute. "Sin tax" or higher tax on items deemed unhealthy by the general population like tobacco and alcohol is horribly wrong imo because this is how it is generally justified.

For the most part, the black and white lines are clear and should be enforced by federal government. Subjective interpretation of "value" as opposed constitutional law should be left to states and I will move where I wish.

How many of us having this debate actually vote in elections at the state and/or federal level? Anyone want to debate the unconstitutionality of the election process?

I like the freedoms I do have. I accept that there is no such thing as a thoroughly just and fair governance that can also take care of its unfortunate or underprivileged classes. I am generally grateful for what I do have. This one can go to popular vote as far as I'm concerned.

who says it's a privledge? The Constitution by omitting it that's who.
Secondly, our saftey IS being infringed upon, that's the whole point.

I have to bail on this debate. Gets me too wound up. Sorry for chiming in. I respect that we all have our own opinions. Mine is no "bettter" than yours, but I respectfully disagree.

Peace.

OK dont. We'll put MORE SAFETY FEATURES on motor vehicles. But guess what? There will still be accidents.

Do you also believe that playground equipment should be removed from playgrounds because kids might get hurt when they PLAY?

My point is, how far do you want to go?

And how far away from the Constitution do you want to go?

disagreement causes progress, it's good. you don't have to bail

Sorry DT. Not healthy for ME to have these debates. I do have to bail.

From what I can see compost saying, I am in agreement with her. If she chooses, she can continue the debate as my chosen "representative". ;-)