Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Violation of possession ban in DC was mandatory year in jail, Rowan served 365 days less than that. And that was WITH shooting the evil poolhopper.


The city did attempt to prosecute, and IIRC, the trial was highly publicized. It ended with a deadlocked jury and the judge declared a mistrial. I don't think that they treated him particularly special. His claim was that his son was a former federal law enforcement officer, and the weapon was exempt from DC law. Apparently, the DA's office disagreed. He was, FWIW, a total hypocrite however. He's dead now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
My two cents...I think government should have the ability to pass these laws. (As they should with seatbelts, etc.) Once again, there is NO fundimental right to drive a motorcycle on public roads, to ride without a seatbelt, etc.


I don't know if I'm taking the hook on a big troll or not...but I'll bite on this one. I've seen this argument so many times before, and am not sure that I've ever actually understood it. Why do I not have a fundamental right to use government property that my taxes have paid for? By paying taxes for roads, as well as tolls...not to mention sales tax on my car/bike, tax on the gas, and on top of that, an exise tax on usage...why am I not entitled to use public roads? Sure, there are rules of the road, and they must be followed. If broken, I lose my usage rights. Now, how is this different from any other fundamental freedoms? If I break the rules, I get thrown in jail, and nearly all of my freedoms (fundamental rights) are gone. I even lose my voting rights in many states. So by your logic, nothing is a right, everything is a privilege. Does that mean that if the government wants to make a law, however unjust or asenine, I should just bend over and take it like a man. Are you just a big fan of federalism or something?

One of the biggest problems with these safety laws, IMO, is that they make for dumber people. Not only does this increase the longevity of real morons, but it increases their potential for breeding...increasing the moron gene pool a bit more. It's anti-Darwinism in action...why protect jerks (from themselves) who make life a little worse for us all? Further, I believe that having laws for every little thing makes people not stop and think about the consequences of their actions. The mentality becomes something like "there's no law against it, so it *must* be OK".

FWIW, there is no fundamental right to breathe on the books either...I guess that the life, liberty, and prosperity thing covers that, but why would riding a motorcycle capable of 200 MPH at legal speeds not also be covered?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Oh for crying out loud, no government is going to get involved with this. Look at the weeping, hysteria, screaming and gnashing of teeth over mandatory helmet laws -- and that's the biggest no-brainer there is.


Wait...the helmet thing is a no-brainer? So which side are you on then? Does it mean that everyone on the other side is brainless? It seems that there are folks on both sides here, so you may want to choose your answer carefully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
The issue here is that EVERY kid in the history of the world has taken risks, not just the outright morons, and experience has taught us to mitigate the worst of that risky behaviour so that we increase the percentage of teenagers that successful make it to adulthood, where they tend to reduce their risk-taking behaviour considerably with more wisdom and experience.


Agreed, but I'm wondering: Isn't there already an existing system in place which recgonizes the risky behavior that some younger riders engage in? Don't those kids have to pay insane insurance premiums on their supermoto's? Would legislature of this type serve to nanny the rest of us in the name of protecting the children?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top