Rand Paul Ridicules Mask-Wearing as 'All About Submission' to Government

[just-want-peace]

So you would be in favor that at least all drivers should be required to wear helmets ?
Am I correct?

No, but I do not see the comparison. Help me out!

No I am saying that you use your seat belt because you understand that is the safest thing, And I agree I use mine also because I am looking out for myself. However I do not believe it is the governments job to look out for me by making it a law.

No, I use the belt for MY safety; the safety of others is a side benefit.
The law mandates it’s use for OTHERS safety; MY safety is a side benefit

Hope this clears up my position on this topic. I am NOT in favor of gov’t PROTECTING ME against myself via legislation

 

[percho]

No, but I do not see the comparison. Help me out!



No, I use the belt for MY safety; the safety of others is a side benefit.
The law mandates it’s use for OTHERS safety; MY safety is a side benefit

Hope this clears up my position on this topic. I am NOT in favor of gov’t PROTECTING ME against myself via legislation

How does you wearing a seat belt make others safe?

 

[Salty]

How does you wearing a seat belt make others safe?

Because, some event (getting hit by another driver, for example) you could be knock unconscious or be thrown from you vehicle - then other in your vehicle could be seriously injured - and/or you driver-less vehicle could hit another vehicle.

 

[Eric B]

Here in NY, they just announced enforcing seatbelts for rear seats. I agree with the point that they could trap you in a burning or crushed car. Lawmakers often never think of all sides of things; just as long as it sounds "safer". It has me wondering why this, now, with everything else going on. I've heard it suggested it's a way for the state to raise money through the $50 fines!.

 

[Salty]

Here in NY, they just announced enforcing seatbelts for rear seats. I agree with the point that they could trap you in a burning or crushed car. Lawmakers often never think of all sides of things; just as long as it sounds "safer". It has me wondering why this, now, with everything else going on. I've heard it suggested it's a way for the state to raise money through the $50 fines!.

Eric - that was the same reason why NY passed the Assessment fee - just extra money.

Now, I will mention this - that a car on fire or being submerge - only accounts for about 1/2 of one % of all traffic deaths -

BTW where abouts in the Empire state are you?

 

[Eric B]

NYC. (Wonder if @annsni is still around. I know she was from Long Island).

(Never heard of Assessment Fee. Just looking it up, it seems to have to do with home ownership. I don't own, so I wouldn't know about that).

 

[Salty]

NYC. (Wonder if @annsni is still around. I know she was from Long Island).

(Never heard of Assessment Fee. Just looking it up, it seems to have to do with home ownership. I don't own, so I wouldn't know about that).

If you assess 6 traffic points -- you will owe an additional 100 dollars per year for 3 years and for - each additional point -add another 50 dollars per year for 3 years. (in addition to any fine and surcharge)

This started back about the year 2005 or so.

I might be just a bit of - but ass we like to say - "Close enough for govt work"