Not sure if this was posted yet, but if not here ya go. Not a real interesting read. Just ironic.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/05/motorcylist-dies-of-head-trauma-while-protesting-state-helmet-la/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/05/motorcylist-dies-of-head-trauma-while-protesting-state-helmet-la/)
Wear your helmets. :thumb:
Rather Ironic...
====
Motorcylist dies of head trauma while protesting state helmet laws
A motorcyclist in New York passed away while participating in a ride to protest the state's helmet laws this past weekend. Philip Contos, a 55-year-old Harley-Davidson rider, was participating in an American Bikers Aimed for Education (ABATE) ride with over 500 other bikers. According to Associated Press reports, Contos locked up the brakes on his motorcycle, fish-tailed and went over the handlebars. He struck his head on the pavement and was transported to a local hospital before being pronounced dead. State police said that the accident would not have been fatal if Contos had been wearing a helmet.
Even so, the rider's death hasn't been enough to deter ABATE, with members saying that helmets shouldn't be mandatory.
====
Michael
:cookoo:
Stupid is as stupid does.
I understand that there are some strong passions regarding "personal freedoms", but IMHO, choosing NOT to wear a helmet is equivalent to stating "To my friends and family: FU. I'm going to be completely selfish today, and there is a real possibility it may be the last thing I ever do!"
Just one guy's opinion.
He certainly did NOT advance his cause, in any case.
I hope, at least, that the support ride was matched up with his personal beliefs.
It would really suck to find out he preferred a helmet, but his buddies cajoled him into the ride, helmet-free.
You should not be so free as to be that stupid. The government has the duty to force to do thing that are good for your well being when you otherwise make choice that are obviously negative.
I'm all for 'make your own choice if you want to bust your grape wide open, should you hit the ground,' but in the past couple of months heard of too many accidents where people died and they probably would've pulled through if they had worn a helmet.
I'd be curious as to what his opinion would have been as to the freedom of the EMT workers, should they have the same choice whether or not they want to scrape his cracked skull up off the pavement? Do I get the freedom to choose a discount on my medical insurance for having common sense? How come I feel like he's the only person with freedom in this scenario? :dunno_black:
Either way, as dumb as he was being, ABATE is definitely trying really hard to spin him into the model motorcyclist. You'd think at least in this case they could've given a facepalm and just said 'yeah that was dumb..."
ABATE of NY Inc. is organizing a memorial "to honor an individual who rode for freedom and risked his all for freedom," he said. A formal date is still to be determined.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/04/new.york.motorcyclist.death/index.html
WTF????
According to ABATE, he's a hero who "risked his all for freedom" ????
Freedom for WHAT???
Excuse me, but I think it's pretty damn sick to twist this person's bad choice into a heroic action. I absolutely refuse to place this nutter in the same category as those who gave everything to preserve our freedom.
I do believe there are things worth dying for... but this is sure as hell not one of them!
:2guns:
In a car, safety = wearing a seatbelt
On a motorcycle, safety = wearing a helmet*
I don't get it. Its the same thing. Fine, dont wear one, but dont come crying to us when your in hospital, or worse, because of it..
I honestly dont get people who think its ok to NOT wear a helmet.. Hello? your on two wheels, no cage, no seatbelt, no airbags.. You need some sort of protection. Thankfully here in the UK its illegal to ride without a helmet on. Even if it were legal to not wear one.. i wouldn't chance it.
*At least
think it shouldnt be mandatory. HOWEVER common sense says wear it. ive seen riders on all types of bikes sans helmet. and some doing squidly shaZam!. ( mentally starting my clock. awaiting the inevitable wreck. )
I know the only time i dont have gear on is when i go 1/4 of a mile down the road to the gas station for ciggs... other than that I always have a helmet on... Wish they could get better at cooling the damn things though...
Helmets should not be mandatory.
People who don't wear helmets are idiots.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NURTFz-26UI/Sqp1oQzQh4I/AAAAAAAAAu0/lWzZhl2CsJY/s1600/633603995427862862-darwinawards.jpg)
The thing I don't like is when you make plans to go on a ride with some guys, and someone has to show up without a helmet, and all you can think of for the 3+ hours your out, every sharp turn, every patch of gravel, is "boy I hope they don't crash because I'm not turning around to see their face smashed and the road covered in blood. I don't even know if I'd stop in that situation, or just keep right on riding. You definitely want to take care of your friends, but you're an ass if you'd be willing to put your friends through that. You could ruin motorcycles for everyone around you that day.
Quote from: Twism86 on July 05, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
The government has the duty to force to do thing that are good for your well being when you otherwise make choice that are obviously negative.
No, NO and NOOOO. The Govt has Not Right to FORCE ANYTHING onto you for anyone's well being - your own or someone else's. It is precisely that kind of belief that gets us into the situation we have NOW where the fruits of your labor are taxed (making you no different than a middleages serf) to "help the children" " help the elderly" and so on and so forth. If *I* as an individual do not have the right to Force you to do something, than a group of people calling themselves Govt does NOT have that right either.
If you subscribe to the "govt can Force you to do a thing for your well-being" then you are also giving up your right to choose what you consider is for your well-being. And you may NOT agree with what the Govt thinks...
For instance, the govt in Texas thinks it is for the well-being of school girls to get the anti-cancer shot DESPITE the MANY negative side effects and HARM caused by the shots and that it doesn't prevent the cancer claimed to be prevented. Of course, that the gov of Texas has shares in the pharma co that makes the vaccine doesn't enter into it, right? So *I* might think that Shot is NOT for my well being. But, allowing the mob rules mentality of govt such power is admitting we have no right to be ourselves and are just drones Belonging to the govt to do as they please.
That this bloke died is terrible. But he failed to follow the one principle all life should follow... doing what is in your own Objective self interest. He did not follow this and paid in full. End of story.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary - H. L. Mencken
Michael
Politics aside, it's a shame the guy died but when you throw caution to the wind and show such blatant disregard for our own personal safety, you are exposing yourself to the worst possible outcome in the worst possible situation. I make no apologies for offending people when I say this - if you ride without a helmet then you are a f%$king idiot :cookoo:
I can only hope that some of his anti-helmet buddies find the hidden message in this terrible event - and if tragedy makes just one more anti-helmet motorcyclist change their mind and it ends up saving their life, then Philip Contos IS a hero in my books.
Quote from: crzydood17 on July 05, 2011, 06:54:09 PM
I know the only time i dont have gear on is when i go 1/4 of a mile down the road to the gas station for ciggs... other than that I always have a helmet on... Wish they could get better at cooling the damn things though...
Then you fit perfectly into the statistic that fate will eventually catch you.
Isnt it that most accidents happen close to home, not more then 2 miles away, to people who aren't wearing gear who are out to make a quick errand?
Want to not become a statistic, read the hurt report, and do everything opposite!
gear up, go to a gas station 5 miles away, drive under the speed limit, and be sober!
Quote from: mister on July 06, 2011, 02:59:35 AM
Quote from: Twism86 on July 05, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
The government has the duty to force to do thing that are good for your well being when you otherwise make choice that are obviously negative.
No, NO and NOOOO. The Govt has Not Right to FORCE ANYTHING onto you for anyone's well being - your own or someone else's. It is precisely that kind of belief that gets us into the situation we have NOW where the fruits of your labor are taxed (making you no different than a middleages serf) to "help the children" " help the elderly" and so on and so forth. If *I* as an individual do not have the right to Force you to do something, than a group of people calling themselves Govt does NOT have that right either.
If you subscribe to the "govt can Force you to do a thing for your well-being" then you are also giving up your right to choose what you consider is for your well-being. And you may NOT agree with what the Govt thinks...
For instance, the govt in Texas thinks it is for the well-being of school girls to get the anti-cancer shot DESPITE the MANY negative side effects and HARM caused by the shots and that it doesn't prevent the cancer claimed to be prevented. Of course, that the gov of Texas has shares in the pharma co that makes the vaccine doesn't enter into it, right? So *I* might think that Shot is NOT for my well being. But, allowing the mob rules mentality of govt such power is admitting we have no right to be ourselves and are just drones Belonging to the govt to do as they please.
That this bloke died is terrible. But he failed to follow the one principle all life should follow... doing what is in your own Objective self interest. He did not follow this and paid in full. End of story.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary - H. L. Mencken
Michael
I had a few classes in college relating to this topic, so my view points are based off of that experience as well as personal beliefs. Do I think a gov't has the right to force you to do almost anything, of course not. However, when people decide to make choice that are so blatantly and clearly bad for them why shouldnt the gov't have a law that prevents doing something so harmful to yourself? Cocaine, heroin etc are all illegal because of the damage they do to you, and to the people affected by your use. Therefore the gov't has made it illegal. I would argue the same for smoking, I wish it was illegal. Anyone who smokes is JUST AS DUMB AND STUPID and someone who murders cops, does hardcore drugs, rides without a helmet or betrays their country. While making smoking illegal will never pass (unfortunately) the gov't can tax the crap out of it t make it less desirable. Why? Because they are protecting your from yourself when you are making poor choices that you know are bad for you. I dont believe we should just let people ruin their lives because "they feel like it." Freedom goes a long way, and like every American I enjoy my freedom but we shouldnt be free to harm ourselves, and other others through our selfish actions.
Quote from: Twism86 on July 06, 2011, 10:37:27 AM
Quote from: mister on July 06, 2011, 02:59:35 AM
Quote from: Twism86 on July 05, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
The government has the duty to force to do thing that are good for your well being when you otherwise make choice that are obviously negative.
No, NO and NOOOO. The Govt has Not Right to FORCE ANYTHING onto you for anyone's well being - your own or someone else's. It is precisely that kind of belief that gets us into the situation we have NOW where the fruits of your labor are taxed (making you no different than a middleages serf) to "help the children" " help the elderly" and so on and so forth. If *I* as an individual do not have the right to Force you to do something, than a group of people calling themselves Govt does NOT have that right either.
If you subscribe to the "govt can Force you to do a thing for your well-being" then you are also giving up your right to choose what you consider is for your well-being. And you may NOT agree with what the Govt thinks...
For instance, the govt in Texas thinks it is for the well-being of school girls to get the anti-cancer shot DESPITE the MANY negative side effects and HARM caused by the shots and that it doesn't prevent the cancer claimed to be prevented. Of course, that the gov of Texas has shares in the pharma co that makes the vaccine doesn't enter into it, right? So *I* might think that Shot is NOT for my well being. But, allowing the mob rules mentality of govt such power is admitting we have no right to be ourselves and are just drones Belonging to the govt to do as they please.
That this bloke died is terrible. But he failed to follow the one principle all life should follow... doing what is in your own Objective self interest. He did not follow this and paid in full. End of story.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary - H. L. Mencken
Michael
I had a few classes in college relating to this topic, so my view points are based off of that experience as well as personal beliefs. Do I think a gov't has the right to force you to do almost anything, of course not. However, when people decide to make choice that are so blatantly and clearly bad for them why shouldnt the gov't have a law that prevents doing something so harmful to yourself? Cocaine, heroin etc are all illegal because of the damage they do to you, and to the people affected by your use. Therefore the gov't has made it illegal. I would argue the same for smoking, I wish it was illegal. Anyone who smokes is JUST AS DUMB AND STUPID and someone who murders cops, does hardcore drugs, rides without a helmet or betrays their country. While making smoking illegal will never pass (unfortunately) the gov't can tax the crap out of it t make it less desirable. Why? Because they are protecting your from yourself when you are making poor choices that you know are bad for you. I dont believe we should just let people ruin their lives because "they feel like it." Freedom goes a long way, and like every American I enjoy my freedom but we shouldnt be free to harm ourselves, and other others through our selfish actions.
Classes in college? That's got Nothing to do with this. But what I made bold "Do I think a gov't has the right to force you to do almost anything, of course not. However, when people decide to make choice that are so blatantly and clearly bad for them why shouldnt the gov't have a law that prevents doing something so harmful to yourself?" is where the trouble begins. WHO has the right to say what is/isn't harmful to me or you or someone else? Why so anti-leave-people-be?
WHO decides?
WHERE do you draw the line?
BY WHAT RIGHT is this decision made?
So Bob is the lord lording over us all, for our protection from ourselves. HE DECIDES rock and roll music is bad so bans it - for our protection and to save the children. Then he decides certain books are bad for us and bans those too - for our protection and to save the children. Then he decides.... and so on. THAT is the slippery slope you slide down when you agree that the Govt Can make decisions For us regarding our own well being and not allow us to make our own decisions. The Govt is not some magic infallible thing, it is made up of screwed up people and they make screwed up decisions based on pressures brought to bear to Save Their Skin and Line Their Pockets. They do NOT have our best interest at heart.
No person has the right, or coerced authority, to make decisions about my benefit or detriment or what it beneficial to me or a detriment to me without my uncoerced voluntary request. Plain and simple.
If YOU want someone to make those decisions For You, that is fine. But you cannot impose that same person onto me without my uncoerced request/permission. Anything else is a slave/master situation in the absolute.
Michael
If people want to accept the risk I say let them. I had one close call and now I won't ride without wearing every piece of my gear. I know a guy who got into an accident and shattered his femur, he's got a titanium rod in his leg -- his solution? Go from a YZF600 to a Harley Sportster (i.e., he'll be 'safer' on a slower bike, his words) and continue riding in nothing but a t-shirt and brain bucket. Another friend of mine has gotten into several accidents, thankfully none of them too serious or fatal. His solution? Nothing. Still rides the same bike, the same way, wearing virtually no gear. Some people just don't care or are just too stupid to realize they should.
There is a line and certain laws would set a dangerous precedent. Therefore I doubt we will ever see laws along those lines. Mister, you and I live across the world, so we will never have to worry about being under the same regime ;) Im honestly not sure where I stand on these issues, but I do feel the gov't has some responsibility to keep us safe from our own dumb choices. We elect our own politicians, so its up to us who we put in office and while ideals they carry. Back to NCIS :D
Quote from: Twism86 on July 06, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
There is a line and certain laws would set a dangerous precedent. Therefore I doubt we will ever see laws along those lines.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/King-Co-requires-life-vests-for-swimmers-1432255.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/King-Co-requires-life-vests-for-swimmers-1432255.php)
There is a discussion about this going on in another forum I frequent (xdtalk.com). Listening to the reactions on both forums, I can't help but think that most individuals who are against wearing a helmet as a requirement sound like children complaining how they don't want to do something simply because their parents are telling them to do it.
In Pa, if you're driving a car, you are required by law to wear a seatbelt; when you pilot a personal watercraft, you're required by law to wear a personal flotation device. Why??? Because it's been proven that wearing a seatbelt in a car and a PFD while in the water will, in the vast majority of instances, save your life. Why should helmets be any different. There will be isolated instances to the contrary, but they would be statistically insignificant (like women who claim to have ended up on the short end of the stick after a divorce).
Operating a vehicle isn't a right. It is a privilege.
Now I am not necessarily for the law, because those who ride irresponsibly without safety gear are best left to weed themselves out and chlorinate the gene pool a bit. It would also be nice if they could take some absent minded and irresponsible cagers with them for the same reason.
Simply put, govt should only pass laws to limit the effects of someone else's actions on ME. Govt should not pass laws to limit the effects of MY actions on ME. Whatever happens to me due to what I choose to do, I deserve. The guy in the OP chose to ride without a helmet, and he deserves the effects. I DO support his right to be stupid, as long as it does not effect ME!
Another way to think about it:
Let's say govt mandates helmet use because riding sans helmet increases the likelihood of death by xx%. Wouldn't that logic also hold in banning motorcycle riding altogether? After all, riding a bike increases the likelihood of death by some %, does it not?
There shouldnt be laws that are "protecting" you from yourself, only you from others.
Drugs illegal, ok, maybe the crack or meth head will go insane, kill 5 cops, and murder a child on a pcp binge...
Not wearing a seatbelt? You die, your family morns a little, nobody else is physically hurt.
Helmet, Ok, you die family morns a but, nobody is hurt.
When I lived in Nh for 3 years, seat belts and helmets are not required to be worn... But I still did. I respect my family and wouldn't want to hurt them based on my idiocy, but whose the government to tell me not to be a moron?
which, confuses me, because pot, which is illegal, is safer and causes less harm then ciggs, both first hand and second hand, and they could make a KILLING off of taxing it, but its illegal... Weird.
-Justin
Quote from: xunedeinx on July 06, 2011, 10:43:59 PM
When I lived in Nh for 3 years, seat belts and helmets are not required to be worn... But I still did. I respect my family and wouldn't want to hurt them based on my idiocy, but whose the government to tell me not to be a moron?
NH is an exception, they are all F-ing weird......
Mister,
You are a firm believer in Social Darwinisim I see. Fluck the disabled, fluck the poor, why should I have to pay taxes to help them. That is a great thing to say until you become one of those people you want to fluck off! Say, you are one of those that want there freedom of riding without a helmet and you end up with a brain stem injury not bad enough to kill you "no that would be a blessing" but one that completely disables you so you cannot work or contribute to society in a way that you once did. Does that mean you don't want anyone to help take care of you? The "I have insurance" isn't going to help you either. Because, 87% of those in the statistic below "had insurance" too.
Here in America 90% of all bankruptcy is due to medical cost. 85% of all Americans are one major illness or accident away from that statistic as well. It is good to have a safety net don't you think? Because, in your view we would just have to kill off 85-90% of Americans that fall on hard times. Stereotypes help no one in no fashion at anytime.
NO I believe helmets should be a law just as seatbelts are. I did scrape up those who didn't and it has left an indeliable mark on my life everytime I go to get on Flick without any of my gear I just picture my friend Troy that is enough to take the extra 5 and put the gear on.
As Paulcet put it, the govt exists to Protect my Property Rights not to infringe upon them for the so-called benefit of others.
The only true wrongs are infringements on my Property Rights. As the overwhelming vast majority of people do not infringe on anyone's property rights the only way to turn them into criminals to is create a myriad of victim-less offences and dangle those over their heads. Eg. seat belt laws, pool fence laws, etc.
I find it most interesting how the victimless offences only ever serve two functions...
Function # 1 - raise revenue for the govt
Function # 2 - lower costs / make money for big money, big pharma and big insurance
Much more can be said, I'll leave it with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Michael
Quote from: Toogoofy317 on July 08, 2011, 02:10:18 PM
Mister,
You are a firm believer in Social Darwinisim I see. Fluck the disabled, fluck the poor, why should I have to pay taxes to help them. That is a great thing to say until you become one of those people you want to fluck off! Say, you are one of those that want there freedom of riding without a helmet and you end up with a brain stem injury not bad enough to kill you "no that would be a blessing" but one that completely disables you so you cannot work or contribute to society in a way that you once did. Does that mean you don't want anyone to help take care of you? The "I have insurance" isn't going to help you either. Because, 87% of those in the statistic below "had insurance" too.
Here in America 90% of all bankruptcy is due to medical cost. 85% of all Americans are one major illness or accident away from that statistic as well. It is good to have a safety net don't you think? Because, in your view we would just have to kill off 85-90% of Americans that fall on hard times. Stereotypes help no one in no fashion at anytime.
NO I believe helmets should be a law just as seatbelts are. I did scrape up those who didn't and it has left an indeliable mark on my life everytime I go to get on Flick without any of my gear I just picture my friend Troy that is enough to take the extra 5 and put the gear on.
My country and yours have different Healthy Systems. So I can only comment from mine, fair enough. And down here we have what is called Medicare. That is Nationwide FREE Medical/Dental - at the cost of a yearly percentage based Levy taken from your income - 1.5% of your taxable income, 2.5% for those who earn above $80k and who do not have their own Private Health Cover as well. So if you want to go to a Doctor you just rock up, show your Medicare Card and are taken care off. Some Docs charge a little more than what the Medicare would reimburse them so what you do is Pay them then go to the Medicare office in your locality and get most of your money back. ALL Doctors at a Hospital are free, so if no Docs in your area will accept the card without extra $ you can always go to the hospital - might have to wait, but as you know, Triage is necessary when seeing large groups of people.
Ambulances in my state were run on a double system. If you use you pay. Or, subscribe like in subscribing to a break down service and then the Ambo is free if you use it. Even though I was a subscriber I objected when it become mandatory because it was no longer a freedom but an enforced thing added to your power bill - don't pay it and they disconnect your electricity!
Our vehicle registrations have portions which provide payouts of money and aid to those who sustain injuries. So with your friend who was hit by the woman in the SUV and ended up in hospital with massive head trauma, under our system he would not want or lack for medical treatments regardless of any private health coverage he may or may not have had.
As for paying taxes to Help The Poor. Our taxes do NOT go to Help Poor. They go into General Revenue. The govt's money source is the Reserve Bank of Australia. They operate exactly like the Federal Reserve does in the USA - they provide money to the govt AT INTEREST and that
interest is paid back using the Income Tax of people drawn out of General Revenue. The money from any Help The Poor programs comes from this Bank NOT our taxes.
In addition, we have Unemployment Benefits that do NOT have a time limit on them, disabled benefits systems and a vast array of support programs to help people who lack food, rent money, who are single moms with no income source, etc. Programs provided by a mix of govt and charities with paid and volunteer workers.
So in the case of a family friend who sustained head trauma in a car crash and who will never work again, in addition to a large lump sum payment, all his medical was taken care of, he receives a Disabled Benefit and his wife receives a Carer's Benefit adjusted to take into account their two dependent children. They receive deductions on just about anything and everything they purchase or have to pay (such as power bills, phone bills, etc.). And if they still cannot manage, then they can get help from the other programs I mentioned - mix of govt and charity.
When my single mom niece had her rent and food money stolen and was about to be forceably removed from her dwelling, I had to show her where she could go for emergency accommodation for women, how to get emergency rent assistance and food. Provided by a mix of govt and charities. And I do volunteer work for one such charity as well as a charity that provides emergency helicopter rescue for crash victims.
In short, No, I do NOT practice Social Darwinism nor do I think "fluck the poor and disabled".
Michael
Quote from: Toogoofy317 on July 08, 2011, 02:10:18 PM
Mister,
You are a firm believer in Social Darwinisim I see. Fluck the disabled, fluck the poor, why should I have to pay taxes to help them. That is a great thing to say until you become one of those people you want to fluck off! Say, you are one of those that want there freedom of riding without a helmet and you end up with a brain stem injury not bad enough to kill you "no that would be a blessing" but one that completely disables you so you cannot work or contribute to society in a way that you once did. Does that mean you don't want anyone to help take care of you? The "I have insurance" isn't going to help you either. Because, 87% of those in the statistic below "had insurance" too.
Here in America 90% of all bankruptcy is due to medical cost. 85% of all Americans are one major illness or accident away from that statistic as well. It is good to have a safety net don't you think? Because, in your view we would just have to kill off 85-90% of Americans that fall on hard times. Stereotypes help no one in no fashion at anytime.
NO I believe helmets should be a law just as seatbelts are. I did scrape up those who didn't and it has left an indeliable mark on my life everytime I go to get on Flick without any of my gear I just picture my friend Troy that is enough to take the extra 5 and put the gear on.
73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot...except on GStwins.com, where it's more like 93.6%...
If an act is so horrible and detrimental to society that a law must be imposed to prohibit society from committing that act then the said punishment from breaking said law should be so severe that nobody (or very few) will risk committing the offense. What if say, we said, "hey, look, not wearing your helment can kill you so, if you break that law, death is the penalty" I know, I know, I can hear it now, "are you out of your flucking mind?" We as a society need to be very careful in how we approach the regulation of the actions of others. I'm not saying we need no laws. (locks keep people honest right?)
Now, personally, I wear all safety devices designed for their purpose. I wear safety glasses and such at work. Why? Because they'll help protect me in all but the most extreme accidents. I wear my seatbelt for the same reason. Thing is though, I value my life and body parts so much that even if it were NOT law, I would still do the same.
I'll also say that whenever someone(i.e-the government) says, "you must do this, it's for your own good/safety". Think long and hard about it. Should we allow it? Who knows better than you about what is safe for you? (slippery slope) The TSA always comes to mind lately when I hear of someone saying, "hey, we need a law against _____ to help keep us safe."
what about a law agains barack obama. which keeps us from falling into this hole were headed into :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :technical:. yeah safety gear, im all for that. and wont ever NOT use it. , id rather it not be forced though. let the idiots weed themselves out of hte pool though. except for one issue. it has been known to raise ones insurance premiums ( health especially because of the actions of a few ppl. ) and some like myself cant get insurance lol. so much in this country is messed up atm.
Regimes come and go. We never know what kook is going to be in charge next, so I don't want our government getting involved in everything. (Heavy Orwellian overtones)