greg334
Veteran Expediter
Oh boy… look at the emotions. I’ve got a lot of reasons to be on one side of this, the side people take that forces businesses to not allow it at all but I don’t feel that way; I have principles about basic rights that go past any political party and they have not changed in 30 years.
Well my point is simple, a business owner has the right to choose what they want to do on their property, and no one forces anyone to be a patron of any business.
No WAY should a business be dictated to by anyone government unless they are holding something like a Russian roulette competition with a one shot pistol where someone gets hurt. Maybe extending that to karaoke.
It goes back to the very basic rights of what our country was built on – FREEDOM.
As Leo has in his signature – “support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.” Well property rights is what that constitution was based on, not a democracy not anything else but the freedom to do with your property as you see fit, be it a business owner or a home owner. Read about what the revolution was all about, read about Kelo V. New London and how no one gets that our constitution is in danger of being changed for the worst.
Once we start eroding the base of the constitution, regardless what the subject is, then everything we do can be controlled by our government. It already happens in places like New York where a couple of lawyers are suing an old lady because of her habits behind her closed doors.
I am not surprise that people just don’t get it, it has nothing to do with the habit or the people who don’t like the smell or anything like that – it comes down to two things; either you want the freedom to choose a path and treat everyone equal or you want to hand over your life decisions to a government based on what they feel is right for you. There is no in-between.
I remember a comment that I read from a group of people who did exactly what is happening here but it had to do with food;
Nutrition is not a private matter
It was printed in a manual for young people during the 1930’s and it was extended to tobacco use and even a religion. The basis for the comment was to control the behavior of people so to allow them to conform to a specific ideology. The person who was in charge of making sure that the children understood it was Baldur von Schirach, the head of the Hitler Youth.
I see exact thing happening here, we start with one behavior, then another and then another. Where would it stop? Guns are bad, so we must regulate Guns – only Guns that can’t shoot will be sold. Food is bad, bring on the Soylent Green and everyone will have a very nutritious meal, yum……
DO we really want to go down the Fascist path here?
Apparently some do want to see government involved with things they should not be.
As for Helmets and cycles, I don’t see a difference with a motor cycle or a car. Insurance is not magical source of money; it is an accumulated monetary fund that everyone puts money into and if you have a high risk of getting hurt, than you need to pay a lot more than I do who does not ride without a helmet. I think closed head injuries are costly and insurance companies don’t’ take them as serious as they should. What really gets me is knowing a person who was driving reckless without a helmet, lost control and ended up in a coma for 8 months, still can’t walk well but the insurance company is footing the bill for a lot of stuff at the same time I have a relative who was t-boned in his van, he was strapped in, never had a ticket or an accident in his life but his family has been fighting the same insurance company just to pay some of the bills, he suffered type of injury, was in the hospital for longer and will never drive again. Why? If the insurance company is worried about not paying a claim, the reckless driver should be the one who should have limited coverage. I see no reason for a primary seatbelt law without a nation wide helmet law – BUT get rid of one, I will agree to the other. The point is if you are so convinced that there should be a seatbelt law as there is a child seat law and other laws but feel that a helmet law is an infringement, well that’s just plain twisted.
Well my point is simple, a business owner has the right to choose what they want to do on their property, and no one forces anyone to be a patron of any business.
No WAY should a business be dictated to by anyone government unless they are holding something like a Russian roulette competition with a one shot pistol where someone gets hurt. Maybe extending that to karaoke.
It goes back to the very basic rights of what our country was built on – FREEDOM.
As Leo has in his signature – “support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.” Well property rights is what that constitution was based on, not a democracy not anything else but the freedom to do with your property as you see fit, be it a business owner or a home owner. Read about what the revolution was all about, read about Kelo V. New London and how no one gets that our constitution is in danger of being changed for the worst.
Once we start eroding the base of the constitution, regardless what the subject is, then everything we do can be controlled by our government. It already happens in places like New York where a couple of lawyers are suing an old lady because of her habits behind her closed doors.
I am not surprise that people just don’t get it, it has nothing to do with the habit or the people who don’t like the smell or anything like that – it comes down to two things; either you want the freedom to choose a path and treat everyone equal or you want to hand over your life decisions to a government based on what they feel is right for you. There is no in-between.
I remember a comment that I read from a group of people who did exactly what is happening here but it had to do with food;
Nutrition is not a private matter
It was printed in a manual for young people during the 1930’s and it was extended to tobacco use and even a religion. The basis for the comment was to control the behavior of people so to allow them to conform to a specific ideology. The person who was in charge of making sure that the children understood it was Baldur von Schirach, the head of the Hitler Youth.
I see exact thing happening here, we start with one behavior, then another and then another. Where would it stop? Guns are bad, so we must regulate Guns – only Guns that can’t shoot will be sold. Food is bad, bring on the Soylent Green and everyone will have a very nutritious meal, yum……
DO we really want to go down the Fascist path here?
Apparently some do want to see government involved with things they should not be.
As for Helmets and cycles, I don’t see a difference with a motor cycle or a car. Insurance is not magical source of money; it is an accumulated monetary fund that everyone puts money into and if you have a high risk of getting hurt, than you need to pay a lot more than I do who does not ride without a helmet. I think closed head injuries are costly and insurance companies don’t’ take them as serious as they should. What really gets me is knowing a person who was driving reckless without a helmet, lost control and ended up in a coma for 8 months, still can’t walk well but the insurance company is footing the bill for a lot of stuff at the same time I have a relative who was t-boned in his van, he was strapped in, never had a ticket or an accident in his life but his family has been fighting the same insurance company just to pay some of the bills, he suffered type of injury, was in the hospital for longer and will never drive again. Why? If the insurance company is worried about not paying a claim, the reckless driver should be the one who should have limited coverage. I see no reason for a primary seatbelt law without a nation wide helmet law – BUT get rid of one, I will agree to the other. The point is if you are so convinced that there should be a seatbelt law as there is a child seat law and other laws but feel that a helmet law is an infringement, well that’s just plain twisted.