Jump to content

Click it or ticket


Zierro

Recommended Posts

Btw, that "good link" looks like a pathetic conspiracy theory/libertarian nutcase website, I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

 

You're obviously missing some pretty vital points then. The government has business in some aspects of society, but personal safety - which is their intentions for making seat belts and helmets mandatory - is the business of the individual. That's like making it illegal to eat to many hamburgers.

 

I pity a person who cannot see the beauty of exercising their own rights and freedoms. I'm not saying that people shouldn't wear seat belts. Hell, I even wear mine. I just think it's ridiculous to force it upon someone. It's your body and your property. And in the case of human projectiles, that is a rare exception, much like what you made of my arguments about being trapped in a car. Personally I've never seen or heard about someone killing another person because they didn't wear a seat belt, so I highly doubt it's a common occurrence.

 

God this argument is so [developmentally delayed]ed and juvenile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kriegsmier

Working as a police officer

 

Requesting you make a thread where we can ask you questions about being a police officer. That would be awesome.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I love how TIF went to a haven of decent debating to "OMG ur point trash dood!" At least give me some reasons, but otherwise the only thing you are telling me is that you disagree, which is pretty worthless to say by its lonesome. But then again, I'm not too sure I want to hear the arguments of a dog worshiper. JK :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find the video, but there's a clip in Zombieland where a lady drives away from the little girl zombies, T-Bones a cargo truck (the type without the top for logs and hay and stuff) and then flies 20 feet through her front window. She also died. Rule #3 - Seat Belts.

 

This law has been in Massachusetts for a long time now, and I don't see the problem in it at all. Seat belts save lives - why not wear it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how TIF went to a haven of decent debating to "OMG ur point trash dood!" At least give me some reasons, but otherwise the only thing you are telling me is that you disagree, which is pretty worthless to say by its lonesome.

 

Because your argument is basically

 

HOW DARE THE GUVMENT TELL US TO WEAR SOMETHING THAT WE DONT EVEN NOTICE IS STRAPPED TO US! THE AUDACITY!

 

Just put the god damn thing on, it doesn't affect you negatively in any way. If you want to be all rebellious and complain that if you don't care about your body/life then go throw yourself off a bridge or something. Everytime someone crashes and gets more damage done than if they were wearing a seatbelt they are costing OTHER people money, among other things.

Oh hey, it's my CHOICE NOT TO WEAR A SEATBELT, well you know what? If you die there are going to be a lot of [bleep]ing depressed people/family who know if you weren't so stupid you could still be alive (I don't mean anyone in this thread, as you said you wear yours).

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because your argument is basically

 

HOW DARE THE GUVMENT TELL US TO WEAR SOMETHING THAT WE DONT EVEN NOTICE IS STRAPPED TO US! THE AUDACITY!

 

Yeah you missed the point alright.

 

Do I think wearing your seat belt is a good thing? Often times, yes. Your chances of living are higher if you wear it. But then again, the same goes for eating healthy.

 

Do I think eating healthy is a good thing? Of course, but that doesn't mean it should be mandatory. It would just be silly for the government to make it illegal to eat more than 10 hamburgers a day.

 

Just put the god damn thing on, it doesn't affect you negatively in any way. If you want to be all rebellious and complain that if you don't care about your body/life then go throw yourself off a bridge or something. Everytime someone crashes and gets more damage done than if they were wearing a seatbelt they are costing OTHER people money, among other things.

 

I bring up eating healthy again. Obesity causes health problems which cost money. If you think the government should control your safety habits because it cost people money, do you think they should control your diet too?

 

Oh and let's not forget cigarettes. It's quite clearly hypocritical that they allow you to willingly get cancer but you can't refuse to buckle up. Maybe this is a money thing after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting stupid...

 

Zierro.. First, can you please not call that biased heap of trash a "good source"? I'm going to pick apart parts of it to help you see otherwise..

 

"The vast majority of the people have always opposed seat belt laws and further opposition has been growing across the U.S. as the police increase harassment of motorists"

 

Sorry, but I'd like to see his source. He'd need a nationwide survey first of all. Then he'd need to compile and check the data, and finally.. The only ones who feel harassed are those who continually do not wear seatbelts. Buckle up and they won't "harass" you.

 

"Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment."

 

Fourth Amendment: "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures." Sorry.. But if you can just quickly look in a car as it passes, it's not unreasonable. It's not like they're randomly stopping you to search your car. Hell..You just go by and notice that they have no seatbelt on.

 

Fifth Amendment: "The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure." Notice this part? in a legal procedure. So suddenly driving your car is a legal procedure?

 

Ninth Amendment: Don't understand this much myself, though the guy probably has a twisted view on it.

 

Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment: Again, this is not that easily understood by me. I should require more time to know it. Would be best to assume the guy has took the parts he liked and applied them.

 

"Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own safety and health standards for his own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone. "

 

What the hell? Seatbelts are proven to save more lives, and he feels that it's an unwarranted intrusion? Sorry, but maybe some people are not capable of determining their own safety for their body, some government intervention is needed at times. Remember those times you got vaccinations at school? Yeah, government was probably behind that. But surely it should have been the parent's decision of what is best for their child.. There is a victim in not wearing a seatbelt, the poor bastard who didn't wear it is a victim to his own stupidity. It threatens his own life in the chance of a crash.

 

Since most of his 3rd point has been addressed here, I won't repeat them. However..

 

"thus in compiling traffic accident data, that exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false."

 

Sorry, but seatbelts are not advertised as 100% safe and 100% chance of saving you. They are just advertised as making a crash less likely to be fatal, which is correct.

 

Source within your source, let's go in..

 

"Analysis of data collected by the NHTSA leads to the conclusion that drivers who wear a seat belt are less likely to be a fatality.

 

Further analysis appears to show that they are more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than drivers who do not wear a seat belt."

 

Okay.. I only need 1 statement to discredit that. More people wear seatbelts than those who do not, therefore it is more likely they'll be in a fatal crash, if you go by numbers, and not percentages.

 

"In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. "

 

The Goverment is not responsible in any way for injuries or deaths caused by a crash, regardless of whether a person was using the correct safety measures or not. The Government was not behind the wheel of either car. The responsibility lies with the drivers.

 

"There is also ample proof that some people have survived a traffic accident only because a seat belt was not used – injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians."

 

Sorry, but what proof? Did you make the person do the crash again, exactly how it happened, just with a seatbelt on? Because if they survived without the seatbelt, they would have with it, since it'd be a minor crash. So yeah, they are liable to a fine for breaking the law, and dangerous driving.

 

"If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt"

 

Yeah..Severity is taken into account when the person actually dies. Kind of indicates it was a severe accident. If they died whilst using a seatbelt, hell, they would die without.

 

"Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person’s death is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985."

 

So let's see..A mistake in the design, or a mistake in the manufactoring process? Yep..Company fault, not the fault of seatbelts as a whole. Arguement of the product being faulty is not viable here.

 

"Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs"

 

Defects can occur in anything. In theory it can work, hell, it may even work at first. Faults may not appear until later in the process, after they are convinced it is working. Again, defects are the fault of the company, we are not forced to become test subjects. The defects may not appear at first. You take the risk when you use anything, nothing is guarenteed to be 100% free from defects.

 

"By law, a sane person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug, treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. Seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector. "

 

Medical care and seatbelts are a world of difference. Religion can stop you accepting surgery, life-saving abortions and such. What religion bans seatbelts? Quick! Be a rebel and make one that does so, but remember, you need about 10,000 members before it is considered an official religion. A seatbelt is basic health and safety, did you know they're pretty much required to maintain good hygene in the food service industry? Same thing as wearing a seatbelt, bud.

 

"In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right to determine one’s individual personal health care standard in the Johnson Controls case. Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320 pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is not mentioned in the Act and is a self-inflicted serious health hazard causing more medical expenses and premature deaths each year than highway fatalities. Further, on June 10, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Echazabal v. Chevron case that Chevron could not refuse to hire Echazabal who had a liver ailment for a position in its refinery where the job environment would, according to medical experts, exacerbate his liver ailment. The court’s ruling in such cases clearly proves that each person has a right to make his/her own individual personal health care decisions even if such is hazardous to one’s health and even if such will increase medical expenses. "

 

Sorry, but he's comparing a world of differences. Wearing a seatbelt is completely different to being refused employment because of certain circumstances. Apples and Oranges basically.

 

"research and studies published in trade journals by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of such laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate and well documented contrary side to the seat belt law controversy. "

 

Maybe this is because they are all like this article and filled with assumptions and misconceptions.

 

"At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths. "

 

Yes, there is a risk with anything, however, air bags do save more people than they kill, correct? And it has to be a significant amount, otherwise we wouldn't have them still.

 

"Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing – force occupants to exit – visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. "

 

Maybe they have adaquate reason to believe you have broken a law? Information is being witheld here.

 

"Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in just two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway fatalities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years."

 

Numbers for accidents and such change yearly. There is nothing to prove that the higher seatbelt use caused more fatal accidents. It's hard to tell what caused an accident, or what was involved. He's using numbers in his own way. More seatbelt use = more fatal accidents? Bull[cabbage].

 

"If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, stalking, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods."

 

Again.. Bull[cabbage] Targeted because of your age? Chances are you were underage. If you have belief that a police officer has commited an infraction himself, take it above him, your license plate could show you have commited previous felonies, and other things aswell..With custom numberplates, even the font can be illegal, because cameras and such cannot read it.

 

"You are subject to an officer’s misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. "

 

Here, we have the public order act, I believe swearing and in general, an abusive manner can come under section 15. I'm sure you Americans have something similar. If an officer sees empty beer bottles/cans in your car and can then test to see if you have been drinking, with reasonable suspicion to do so. And if your cash has the odor of drugs, then chances are, it's been around drugs recently, and if there is a lot of drug residue, is that not reasonable to test you for drugs?

 

"Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat."

 

The driver should check before he sets off then? The safety of the people in his car are both the driver's, and the individual's responsibility.

 

"Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes)"

 

Or maybe the fine encourages people to actually buckle up? I mean..A fine is an incentive to follow the law, you ought to be punished for breaking it anyway, a fine is better than some time in jail or community service, correct?

 

"Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record."

 

Yeah? I'd be targeted for being a new driver, even though I've clearly had no accidents or violations. Insurance companies have to pay out, so it's only reasonable to charge those who are more likely to be in a damaging accident because they don't wear a seatblet.

 

"Some states level points against a driver’s license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine"

 

Again, more reason to actually follow the law, if it was simply a fine, some people could go "A fine doesn't bother me." the prospect of losing your license is a somewhat terrifying one if you rely on your license for employment/commuting.

 

"If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped."

 

Didn't realise officers knew everything about everyone. It's right, they don't know until they are stopped, however, I'm sure those who are stopped do not mind the minor inconvenience.

 

Okay..Getting tired now and bored of arguing against these points, since looking at the rest, I've probably addressed something similar, or other people have refuted it in their post already.

swordfinalqr7.jpg

Denizen of Darkness| PSN= sworddude198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how TIF went to a haven of decent debating to "OMG ur point trash dood!" At least give me some reasons, but otherwise the only thing you are telling me is that you disagree, which is pretty worthless to say by its lonesome. But then again, I'm not too sure I want to hear the arguments of a dog worshiper. JK :P

 

It's hard to argue when you bring up terrible analogies to justify yourself. It is not the same as eating too many hamburgers, not by a long shot. If you read what some have said (instead of ignoring it) you would have noticed that deaths / injuries from those who don't wear a seatbelt costs a lot of money, it can cause harm to those around them, and (even though it is incredibly obvious I would hope) the chances of getting in a normal crash versus getting your car submerged in water (I mean, really?) is much higher. If your only real arguments against this boil down to "It's my body and I'll do what I want to" and "Well if your car fell in a lake..." you don't have that great of backup. Then you post an obviously biased source to your claims.

 

So really it's difficult, impossible even, to argue against this. Everyone has given very solid facts and all you have done is regurgitated the same two lines over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of the discussion but Zierro's point is pretty important. The government can't manage everything (unless you guys really want a totalitarian government), and wearing seatbelts may have been a step too far towards too much centralized power.

HOWEVER, I must say, a mandatory seatbelt law is in my eyes the same as any other road law. Sure, other road laws are mainly to protect others... but they protect you too, whether you like it or not. If you're going to start rebelling against the government's increase of power over your daily life, using this seatbelt law as your cornerstone example is pretty lame. So lame, in fact, that people can't make the stretch from seatbelts laws to your fundamentally important values that go hand in hand with freedom. No, think of the illegal drugs, forced media exposure, suppression of the lower class by large companies... the list goes on. Those are far better examples of the extreme concentration of centralized power, in my opinion.

hiccup.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So really it's difficult, impossible even, to argue against this. Everyone has given very solid facts and all you have done is regurgitated the same two lines over and over.

 

Two? I think you'll see that I've given a pretty fair amount of points throughout this thread. Take a look.

 

If your only real arguments against this boil down to "It's my body and I'll do what I want to" and "Well if your car fell in a lake..." you don't have that great of backup.

 

In any normal argument we're both going to be biased to a degree. You conveniently assume getting trapped in a car is a rare thing and I conveniently assume getting ejected and hitting another person is a rare thing. See how that works?

 

Zierro.. First, can you please not call that biased heap of trash a "good source"? I'm going to pick apart parts of it to help you see otherwise..

 

Yes, there are obvious flaws in the link. I never said it was perfect. But it does give you a pretty accurate idea of what my opinions are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont even see how you can argue your point here.

 

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

If you wear a seatbelt and dont crash, no harm done. If you wear one and you crash, it'll probably save your life. Its just as simple as that.

Tk5SF.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is being missed again. I am not saying wearing your seat belt is a bad thing. I am saying having laws forcing it is what's bad. You would be crazy to eat 10 hamburgers, but you would be crazier to make a law restricting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is being missed again. I am not saying wearing your seat belt is a bad thing. I am saying having laws forcing it is what's bad. You would be crazy to eat 10 hamburgers, but you would be crazier to make a law restricting it.

If people were actually silly enough to eat 10 hamburgers, and then call the emergency services because their tummy hurts, the law would be motivated. I don't really mind having people who choose not to wear their seatbelt die or get hurt - call it modern darwinism - my problem is that the severity of the injuries or deaths are, one way or the other, costing other people money. Whether it's a state run healthcare system, or insurance premiums for health insurance, the fact is that the guy wearing the seat belt is unlikely to bear the full cost of his own idiocy.

 

It's really a societal paradox; Ultimate individualistic liberty will not function in a collective society based on compassion. If you, by law, can't turn people down in the emergency room at a hospital, there's a bunch of stupid [cabbage] there's just no way you can allow.

 

 

(And having said that, even if you somehow manage to crash in water more often than crash at ejection speed - which I sincerely doubt, considering the high % of roads nowhere near water - as someone pointed out earlier, wearing a seatbelt increases the chance of entering the water conscious and alert rather than having banged your head into the exploding airbag. Similarly, if your crash is violent enough to set the car on fire, or flip, or whatever, the seatbelt helps ensure that you're in a state where you can move in the first place.)

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to start rebelling against the government's increase of power over your daily life, using this seatbelt law as your cornerstone example is pretty lame. So lame, in fact, that people can't make the stretch from seatbelts laws to your fundamentally important values that go hand in hand with freedom. No, think of the illegal drugs, forced media exposure, suppression of the lower class by large companies... the list goes on. Those are far better examples of the extreme concentration of centralized power, in my opinion.

 

Pretty much what I was thinking from page 1. Of all the things he could have picked, he picked the thing that the majority of people would likely do anyway if laws weren't there.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is being missed again. I am not saying wearing your seat belt is a bad thing. I am saying having laws forcing it is what's bad. You would be crazy to eat 10 hamburgers, but you would be crazier to make a law restricting it.

 

so in other words... you're worried about your freedom of seats?

 

HEY OH.

 

ok sorry.

Tk5SF.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't get my point? :shock: I wear my seat belt. That's not very relevant to the point though. It's about the government trying to control the simple aspects of our lives which shouldn't be their business, and using our health as an excuse - as if they actually cared about our health, with cigarettes and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of which are warranted, others which are ridiculous. What's your point? If there is one bad law then there's allowed to be more?

 

I think it's stupid to make laws about subjects concerning you moreso than it concerns society. Suicide and abortion are very controversial - the government should take no part in having a say so in subjects so opinionated. I don't condone either of those (in fact I'm against them) but why should the government call all the shots? And why do they randomly choose to care about your safety in traffic but yet they could care less if you kill your lungs or liver or heart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, that "good link" looks like a pathetic conspiracy theory/libertarian nutcase website, I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

 

You're obviously missing some pretty vital points then. The government has business in some aspects of society, but personal safety - which is their intentions for making seat belts and helmets mandatory - is the business of the individual. That's like making it illegal to eat to many hamburgers.

 

I pity a person who cannot see the beauty of exercising their own rights and freedoms. I'm not saying that people shouldn't wear seat belts. Hell, I even wear mine. I just think it's ridiculous to force it upon someone. It's your body and your property. And in the case of human projectiles, that is a rare exception, much like what you made of my arguments about being trapped in a car. Personally I've never seen or heard about someone killing another person because they didn't wear a seat belt, so I highly doubt it's a common occurrence.

It's not just "personal safety"!! Other people use the road! Other people have to clean up the dead bodies! Also "human projectiles" isn't "rare" at all, if someone hits the side or back of your car when you have a belt on, the belt will stop you from moving very far - if you are just sitting there there's NOTHING to stop you being flung in the other direction either through the windscreen, into the other passengers or even being crushed into the little space beneath the seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected more from Zierro.

 

Here, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense. They need to pull you over for something like expired tags or speeding and then they can tack on the not wearing seatbelt charge. I always wear mine. Not just because it'll save your life in an accident, but because in turning I don't want to move to a side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected more from Zierro.

 

I expected more from TIF. You guys aren't even debating me anymore. You just keep posting random pretentious junk trying to hurt my feelings, lol. I made this thread for a generic liberal debate, and all I get is this.

 

It's not just "personal safety"!! Other people use the road! Other people have to clean up the dead bodies! Also "human projectiles" isn't "rare" at all, if someone hits the side or back of your car when you have a belt on, the belt will stop you from moving very far - if you are just sitting there there's NOTHING to stop you being flung in the other direction either through the windscreen, into the other passengers or even being crushed into the little space beneath the seats.

 

It's about 99% your personal safety and 1% the safety of others. Seriously, I have never heard of a case of someone killing another person because they didn't have their seat belt on. That is the rare exception. It's along the same lines of second hand smoke killing someone - or operating heavy machinery and getting a heart attack from eating too much McDonalds, which kills an innocent person. It happens, but very rarely. People have to clean up dead bodies and pay for medical expenses because of tobacco and fast food being legal. This is blatant hypocrisy on the government's part right here. If they care about saving lives so much, then please tell me why they allow cigarettes? Oh yeah. They can make money off of taxing them. Just like they can make money from seat belt tickets. This is really a no-brainer.

 

Also "human projectiles" isn't "rare" at all

 

And I still can't believe that is what some of you guys' entire argument relies on, and the only one of mine you keep attacking is being trapped in a car, even though I've provided several better arguments than that. But no, every time I bring up a new argument, such as the cigarettes, it gets ignored and someone goes straight to the fire/water for the 20th time.

 

By the way, moving heavy furniture which can be much sharper, harder, larger, and less air resistant than a person (the perfect projectile) is completely legal, so I highly doubt "projectiles" is the reason the government made it mandatory. Cigarettes, eating til you have a heart attack, and moving projectiles are all legal - and they all match the same arguments you guys have been repeating (it costs money, it can hurt others, people have to clean up your body, you're stupid if you do it) YET THEY ARE LEGAL!! What does that tell you? The government isn't some loving mothergoose fairytale trying to save every life they possibly can like some of you seem to think - they're more like a business.

 

This should be making me angry, but actually it's hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.