Click It or Ticket Mobilization
- Thread starter stardate
- Start date
- Status
Tim
I can see your point,and Big John who would not sign ,knew the result of not signing,
I can see an old mans life exp,combat veteran,lifes work and all and having just had enough.
I would not want to go to jail for any reason,niether did he ,and will ask him in the morning to tell me what the judge told him.
I remember it all got kicked out of court that morn,and still believe he was in the right.
Seems this type of conviction and or courage is what i and so many others are lacking.
I cannot imagine a nation of men who just say no,not now ,not ever.
I wear my seat belt and would wear a helment in the car as well,but it would draw attention . LOL
I can see your point,and Big John who would not sign ,knew the result of not signing,
I can see an old mans life exp,combat veteran,lifes work and all and having just had enough.
I would not want to go to jail for any reason,niether did he ,and will ask him in the morning to tell me what the judge told him.
I remember it all got kicked out of court that morn,and still believe he was in the right.
Seems this type of conviction and or courage is what i and so many others are lacking.
I cannot imagine a nation of men who just say no,not now ,not ever.
I wear my seat belt and would wear a helment in the car as well,but it would draw attention . LOL
The point is, is doesn't the gov't have anything better to do than to make sure you are wearing a seatbelt (something that shouldn't be the law in the firs place)? If not, I can see some spend cuts in order.
Thinking this through, if this is to save lives, then everyone should have a roolcage in their car. And wear helmets and the head/neck restraint device, just like all the race car drivers do. After all, isn't it worth it if it may save your life? Heck, we need fire suits, too.
Thinking this through, if this is to save lives, then everyone should have a roolcage in their car. And wear helmets and the head/neck restraint device, just like all the race car drivers do. After all, isn't it worth it if it may save your life? Heck, we need fire suits, too.
Shooter 973
New member
Click it or Ticket???
Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave???? I don't think so......
Big Brother knows best, for you and your family!!! Don't you dare question it or them!!!!
If you don't love your Family enough to use a seat belt, Why should the Govt. care???
Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave???? I don't think so......
Big Brother knows best, for you and your family!!! Don't you dare question it or them!!!!
If you don't love your Family enough to use a seat belt, Why should the Govt. care???
paratrooper
New member
If you own a home and it snows guess who MUST keep the sidewalk safe . YOU!!! But you don't own it . The city does . If someone slips and falls the city doesn't want to be sued so they DEMAND that YOU take responsability . Their property , your insurance . Same with seatbelts . When I lived in Houston a girl in our "crowd" got a DUI . She did not have insurance . It seems that these 2 things go together . Reckless enough to drive drunk usually means that you are irresponsible enough to not carry insurance . Since indigant people must be treated for free when they get hurt in an accident the city/county/state etc. don't want that expense sooooooooo they jump on anyone that they can reach . I have gangbusters insurance . I get hurt , I get fixed . To only target those with sorry/no insurance might be construed as racial or some such other drivel soooo they target everyone . It is easier to make law abiding people obey the law than to make lawbreakers obey it . The revenue from these fines support the machine that must provide help for the "poor" people . Don't single out the ones most likely . You might strike a nerve . It would be impossible to enforce a law that required those with no health insurance to buckle up . Those with good insurance are allowed to drive unfettered . Naaahhhhhhhh , no money in that .
urban assault
New member
It's stupid to not wear a seat belt, but it's CRIMINAL for a cop to try to 'force' me to wear one if I choose not to. I know gang, let's cover all cars in super-thick rubber armor, or wrap anyone who leaves the house in layers of bubble-wrap, or ban anything sharp, even dangerous toothpics. Gosh, it feels so GOOD to be safe and protected by people who can make my decisions for me! Just one more step down the dark road towards the completion of the true nanny state. I will pay my damn seatbelt ticket with a smile, it will be worth it. Bastages.
Apart from the other issues, it really is a waste of poublic resources and money that could be diverted where it counts.
Police roadblocks are not that hard to spot. People that are not given to the idea of being buckled can discreetly buckle-up on approach, smile say hello, drive away - and unbuckle a hundred yards down the road.
Good conditioning though; getting people used to roadblocks as a "routine" matter for one excuse or another.
Police roadblocks are not that hard to spot. People that are not given to the idea of being buckled can discreetly buckle-up on approach, smile say hello, drive away - and unbuckle a hundred yards down the road.
Good conditioning though; getting people used to roadblocks as a "routine" matter for one excuse or another.
Seat belt usage is a primary law here in Virgina. You can be pulled over and ticketed if seen not wearing yours.
People complain about these laws, but as they will tell you here driving is a privilege not a right. You do have the right to walk though.
As to the gun transportation then you should be transporting it in a legal manner anyway. Otherwise you are breaking a law whether or not you do wear your seat belt. If the law allows a locked container then a locked gun case should work inside of a truck. A cheap plastic case and pad lock should suffice.
People complain about these laws, but as they will tell you here driving is a privilege not a right. You do have the right to walk though.
As to the gun transportation then you should be transporting it in a legal manner anyway. Otherwise you are breaking a law whether or not you do wear your seat belt. If the law allows a locked container then a locked gun case should work inside of a truck. A cheap plastic case and pad lock should suffice.
Sir William
New member
Visibility only. These circuses are about money. Federal highway funds are tied to enforcement quotas. No tickets, no funds. I believe the castle doctrine should be applied to POVs. I do not support roadblocks. It is a waste of overtime which is federally funded. The problem? The federal funds that are returned to the states ARE from the states. Revolving door. Insurance is state supported legalized extortion. If there were no insurance, lawsuits would drop and lawyers would have to go back to giving learned advice.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
First of all, they're not "roadblocks" in any sense of the word. No one is detained unless they're in violation of the law. Second, fatal and injury accidents are significantly down in areas where seatbelt violations are a primary reason to stop. There's no doubt that people who are too stupid to reduce their chances of injury in the event of a crash cost EVERYBODY money. Third: You don't have the right to endanger your minor children by violating the law by not making them wear a seatbelt or ride in a child restraint seat, on the contrary, you have an obligation to keep them from harm. Fourth: local governments do NOT get that much money in revenue as a result of the tickets. Most of the fine goes to the state. Fifth: If you don't like the law, why are you whining about the cops? Your elected officials were the ones who passed the law.
Kind of funny that so many people who rationalize carrying a gun because they need it to keep them and their families "safe" will fail to take steps that are a lot MORE likely to keep them "safe".
Yeah, no seat belts. And who are they to tell me how fast to drive? Say no to speed limits!! And bald tires, if I want to drive on 4 bald tires why shouldn't I be able to? Who does it hurt? Two headlights? I don't need two stinking headlights. Brakes that work? Mine'll stop me eventually and that's good enough for me!! No regs, no regs, no regs...feel free to chant along...
Anyway, I've worked with way too many folks during the past 30 years, most of them youngish males, who cracked their heads open in wrecks when they weren't wearing a seat belt. Half a mil or more in hospital bills that their minimum-coverage insurance didn't cover, more years of rehabilitation and day treatment programs, years of monthly checks from Social Security disability and lots of other services - and quite a few have had second and third wrecks involving other people when they started driving again - so yeah, they don't just hurt only themselves.
The previous rant was a gross generalization...but you get the idea.
John
Anyway, I've worked with way too many folks during the past 30 years, most of them youngish males, who cracked their heads open in wrecks when they weren't wearing a seat belt. Half a mil or more in hospital bills that their minimum-coverage insurance didn't cover, more years of rehabilitation and day treatment programs, years of monthly checks from Social Security disability and lots of other services - and quite a few have had second and third wrecks involving other people when they started driving again - so yeah, they don't just hurt only themselves.
The previous rant was a gross generalization...but you get the idea.
John
XavierBreath
New member
Sir William got it right.
But............
But............
You mean to tell me it's against the law in your state to transport a gun to a legal range to shoot? What state do you live in for Pete's sake?
A more effective way to induce "Compiance" with seat belt laws would be rewarding drivers wearing belts.
Set up a system that gives $1000 to drivers who are wearing belts.
Have a system to count every 10,000th car that passes a certain point. Stop it and if occupants were observed wearing belts they get the grand!
Cops would be good guys, folks would wear belts, and drivers would get rewards.
The Provost Marshall at Ft Stewart did this when I was stationed there in the 70's. Gave out $20 bills. Had an MP Sgt in regular fatigues watch cars pulling out of the PX. I lost out because I only had my lap belt on, not my shoulder belt (They were separate in my car)
Set up a system that gives $1000 to drivers who are wearing belts.
Have a system to count every 10,000th car that passes a certain point. Stop it and if occupants were observed wearing belts they get the grand!
Cops would be good guys, folks would wear belts, and drivers would get rewards.
The Provost Marshall at Ft Stewart did this when I was stationed there in the 70's. Gave out $20 bills. Had an MP Sgt in regular fatigues watch cars pulling out of the PX. I lost out because I only had my lap belt on, not my shoulder belt (They were separate in my car)
Double Naught Spy
New member
I just love naive statements like this one from jonathan. This sort of statement reeks of a poor understanding of law, rights, and the notion of a "truely free society."
First, such laws are not unconstitutional. Driving is a priveledge and not a right. The irony here is that you refer to it as being unconstitional and then says the laws have no place in a truely free society. How can you not laugh at such a statement? Given that the Constitution is the first formal national document defining our rights, it becomes the first national document limiting our rights. So much for being a "truely free society."
As for the comment that you don't harm any other person other than yourself. That is garbage. First, parents are responsible for the kids in the vehicle an often the parents who don't wear seatbelts don't make their kids wear seatbelts. Additionally, I am harmed by a lot of the morons who don't wear seatbelts and end up and invalids or comatose carcasses as it ends up being some of my money that goes to keeping those folks alive (for reasons I don't understand).
Do I like the fact we have laws for such things? Nope. But you see, in a 'truely free society' where there would be no laws, you won't ever have harmony as slackards and morons will take advantage of their absolute freedoms and do dumb stuff that will eventually come to be bad for me or my family. It will be those same morons with poor judgment who will want my aid to take care of them after doing something stupid because once they are no longer able to fully care for themselves, they will cry and moan for help to be kept from being eaten alive by the scavengers because in a 'truely free society,' there is no healthcare provisions. A 'truely free society' only exists in nature where there are no legal rules or laws.
Be careful while playing with the gators, natureboy.
Our seatbelt law is going from secondary to primary enforcement. I've always worn one since they became standard equipment, so it won't be a worry to me.
The roadblocks are just ways to line city, county, and state coffers. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not up to speed on "Funding your Government 101".
It always intrigued me as to how the state of South Carolina can pass primary seatbelt enforcement, but still doesn't require motorcyclists to wear helmets.
The roadblocks are just ways to line city, county, and state coffers. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not up to speed on "Funding your Government 101".
It always intrigued me as to how the state of South Carolina can pass primary seatbelt enforcement, but still doesn't require motorcyclists to wear helmets.
- Status