# When did it become the governments job?



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

When did it become the governments job to worry about my personal safety? I've got an ounce of common sense, I think I do a pretty good job on my own. History has proven they're really not very good at doing anything they attempt. Why would they attempt to try to make sure we are all safe at all times? Silly. 

So, I've got to wear a seat belt in my own car to keep me safe even though I've never had an accident in the last 30 years? I can't smoke in the post office parking lot while I'm waiting on the wife, but it's ok if she were to smoke while she was pregnant? I can ride my motorcycle at 75mph without my helmet or seatbelt. I can take a spin in my chevy colbalt with my german shepard on my lap but I can't talk on my cell phone at a stop light? I can carry a weapon for personal protection but I can never, and I mean never unholster it. I must replace my sidewalks to ensure the very last crack is perfect. Why not make cut down the trees next to the sidewalk so that the same dumb jogger doesn't run into them then? Maybe the government hasn't realized what we all know; "you can't fix stupid". I could go on an on. 

I've found out a lot of things in this life and the reason behind most usually comes down to money. Is it the insurance companies behind all of this?


Who else has a "When did it become the governments job?"


----------



## mikel m14 (Jul 24, 2006)

MarksExtra said:


> When did it become the governments job to worry about my personal safety?


They have to protect you from yourself.:wink:

On a side note my father put up a stong mailbox the state then told him to take it down. They told him if it wasn't down then they would take it down because a person may damage their vehicle from hitting it. So he took it down, I told him that he should have asked them if they were going to take the power line poles.


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

I know what you mean.
The truth is the American people have allowed the thugs in D.C,. to strip away our Constitutional rights. Of course it did not happen overnight, as far back as the New Deal under Roosevelt .....who escelated our current Socialist trend. Federal Income Tax laws as we know it today, Social Security [_Social Insecurity_], Gun Control, seat belt laws [except in the case of children], Iminant Domain [_stealing of personal property by the goverment]_, ECT. ECT.
Both of our 2 major parties have promoted this type of tyrany. Someone once said " _A people that will give up their freedom to get something, deserve neither"_
I know a lot of us see the error, but a lot of folks, some of them in my family.....are willing to give up their freedom for what they *think * they will get in return.


----------



## mcharles (Nov 11, 2009)

Be Safe

Be Healthy


They want you to live a long and fruitful life

So you will pay as much taxes into the system as possible

Then, when you no longer pay in, it's time to go......


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

I made a joke a few years back that they would soon start taxing us for going to the bathroom.
Dont sound too unrealistic today.ukey:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

don't forget to put the handrail on the wall going up the padded carpeted steps or else the building inspector won't give you an occupancy permit. Safety first children.

It's mandatory for me to discontinue use of my septic system that that's worked perfectly for how many years because I have to pay to hook up to township sewer. Sewer is safer for everyone. No. It's not about money at all. ukey:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

So it’s ok for me to go 65mph in my 7000lb pick up truck as long as I’m wearing my seatbelt and not using my phone. Heck, I’m so safe now that the state prohibits bicycles from using the sidewalk and makes them share the road with vehicles. Makes sense to me. No headlights, no brakelights, no turnsignals towing a toddler in a tow behind pull thingy. Just because bikes travel at 25mph and most cars go 2-3 times that speed. It’s no problem. I’m sure that little foam helmet will protect them from most car bumpers. Makes sense to me. 

So the third week in September the guys with the guns have to wear orange while the guys huntin the same woods with bows don't have to wear orange? Are the bowhunters' safety less important? Are they impervious to muzzleloader sabots? This is one time I'm glad the powers that be haven't caught on yet. I feel perfectly safe during that 3rd week because I don't think I look like an elk anyways. :wink:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

Literally billions of air travels now remove their shoes at airports during check in because 1 crazy azz fanatic failed at lighting his shoes up? Pulllleeessse. One guy? Come on. Shoudln't we just shut down all major highways because traffic accidents kill? Wouldn't that be a more effective way of saving lives. After all we are talking about public safety. Maybe we should require everone on board to wear a straight-jacket while flying. After all, all successful hijackers had to get out of their seats to get the plane hijacked. Prohibiting movement would be way more successul at preventing hijackings.


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

Curve1 said:


> I know what you mean.
> The truth is the American people have allowed the thugs in D.C,. to strip away our Constitutional rights. Of course it did not happen overnight, as far back as the New Deal under Roosevelt .....who escelated our current Socialist trend. Federal Income Tax laws as we know it today, Social Security [_Social Insecurity_], Gun Control, seat belt laws [except in the case of children], Iminant Domain [_stealing of personal property by the goverment]_, ECT. ECT.
> Both of our 2 major parties have promoted this type of tyrany. Someone once said " _A people that will give up their freedom to get something, deserve neither"_
> I know a lot of us see the error, but a lot of folks, some of them in my family.....are willing to give up their freedom for what they *think * they will get in return.


this is so true. thanks for sharing.


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

MarksExtra said:


> Literally billions of air travels now remove their shoes at airports during check in because 1 crazy azz fanatic failed at lighting his shoes up? Pulllleeessse. One guy? Come on. Shoudln't we just shut down all major highways because traffic accidents kill? Wouldn't that be a more effective way of saving lives. After all we are talking about public safety. Maybe we should require everone on board to wear a straight-jacket while flying. After all, all successful hijackers had to get out of their seats to get the plane hijacked. Prohibiting movement would be way more successul at preventing hijackings.




Anothert twist on the terrorist issue is.......if we want to eliminate terrorism as much as possible in our country, why doesn't our 2 major parties want to SECURE OUR BORDERS??? HELLO/?

The Constitution Party is the ONLY party serious about this issue.


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

Curve1 said:


> Anothert twist on the terrorist issue is.......if we want to eliminate terrorism as much as possible in our country, why doesn't our 2 major parties want to SECURE OUR BORDERS??? HELLO/?
> 
> The Constitution Party is the ONLY party serious about this issue.


Good point!


So when I go hunting in Colorado the third week of September, the guys with the guns are the ones that have to wear orange and the bowhunters in the exact same woods who don't carry guns don't have to wear orange? huh? Isn't the safety of the people without the guns as imprtant as the muzzle loaders with the guns? I'm glad the government hasn't caught up with that one yet. I feel pretty safe that third week as a bowhunter probably because I don't think I look very much like an elk. Go figure.


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

I've noticed over the last thirty years that the trains that go through town have whistles/horns that are louder and louder. I can now hear the train horn blowing five MILES from the tracks. Really? Is that necessary? Who are we trying to protect with a horn that can be heard at a 5mile range? If someone is on the tracks and can't hear a regular train horn that can only be heard at lets say 2 miles(god forbit something realistic like 300 yards), then they aren't going to hear a louder one that can be heard at 5 miles. I mean, the tracks are not a sidewalk, a road, or a atv trail. It's common sense. If they're on the tracks and they don't get off. Well......as they saying goes. "you can't fix stupid". The tracks are no different than a highway. There are going to be accidents. We don't have blast horns for intersections on highways and roads do we? Maybe we need to.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MarksExtra said:


> When did it become the governments job to worry about my personal safety? I've got an ounce of common sense, I think I do a pretty good job on my own. History has proven they're really not very good at doing anything they attempt. Why would they attempt to try to make sure we are all safe at all times? Silly.
> 
> So, I've got to wear a seat belt in my own car to keep me safe even though I've never had an accident in the last 30 years? I can't smoke in the post office parking lot while I'm waiting on the wife, but it's ok if she were to smoke while she was pregnant? I can ride my motorcycle at 75mph without my helmet or seatbelt. I can take a spin in my chevy colbalt with my german shepard on my lap but I can't talk on my cell phone at a stop light? I can carry a weapon for personal protection but I can never, and I mean never unholster it. I must replace my sidewalks to ensure the very last crack is perfect. Why not make cut down the trees next to the sidewalk so that the same dumb jogger doesn't run into them then? Maybe the government hasn't realized what we all know; "you can't fix stupid". I could go on an on.
> 
> ...


It is not the Federal Governments job to tell you to buy insurance. It is not the Feds job to meddle in the affairs of the states, yet the Fed's want to overstep your borders, and the States, not to be left out, feel that they have to do their job in getting into the affairs of your life.

I'd like to have them BOTH Butt-Out of our lives.... 

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

rattus58 said:


> It is not the Federal Governments job to tell you to buy insurance. It is not the Feds job to meddle in the affairs of the states, yet the Fed's want to overstep your borders, and the States, not to be left out, feel that they have to do their job in getting into the affairs of your life.
> 
> I'd like to have them BOTH Butt-Out of our lives....
> 
> Much Aloha... :beer:


Great post. So if I am a multi-millionaire I still have to purhase state minimum auto insurance coverages so that I can protect myself? dumb


----------



## Tim50 (Jan 26, 2008)

Some organization always knows what is best for you...whether you agree or disagree.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Tim50 said:


> Some organization always knows what is best for you...whether you agree or disagree.


Right On! That is another attitude we're dealing with in the USA.... Environmentalists, Animal Rightist.... some damn "ist" somewhere. If it's an "ist" it is usually wanting to restrict your behavior.... Conservationist maybe excepted..... 

Aloha.... :beer:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

definately make it mandatory to wear a workmans helmet while I"m working construction 20 stories up. After all, that helmet could save your life when you fall to the pavement. NOT.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MarksExtra said:


> definately make it mandatory to wear a workmans helmet while I"m working construction 20 stories up. After all, that helmet could save your life when you fall to the pavement. NOT.


Well I'm not against wearing a helmet with someone above me handling tools and such, but why a hat that won't stay on? How come not a football helmet, or a bicycle helmet and what would happen if you showed up at work with one of them?.... :grin:

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

Everytime I get in my car all the locks go down. Why do I need to be automatcially locked in my car? I don't like to be automatically locked in my car. Evertime I exit my car I have to hit the unlock button. If I'm required to hit a button every time, couldn't I just as easily hit the "lock" button every time if I would like myself locked in? I was never locked in my car automatically the last 40 years and I was fine. Kids haven't fallen out before, but then again I exercise common sense. I was never car-jacked in the last 40 years, but then again maybe that was because I believe in the second amendment. No doubt it's a safety issue. Safe for whom I don't know. Either way I"m sure it can traced back to our governement/insurance companies.(synonomous) who are no doubt looking out for my personal safety.


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

Curve1 said:


> Anothert twist on the terrorist issue is.......if we want to eliminate terrorism as much as possible in our country, why doesn't our 2 major parties want to SECURE OUR BORDERS??? HELLO/?
> 
> The Constitution Party is the ONLY party serious about this issue.


I'd like to do one better... an add on to yours. "why doesn't our 2 major parties want to Secure our borders...like the law states they have to(Fence)...like they vowed to do(oath)?...":sad:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

why did the government suddenly feel the need to mandate that gas can mfg's make a safer cap/spout? I never had a problem in the past. Now I get the new improved safe version of the gas can and I suddenly have a problem. I'd like to kick someone in the balls for making such a stupid gas distribution method. I definately spill more gas trying to use one of the safe gas cans than I ever did before.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

that is an unintended consequence... part of the deal.....

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

can anyone else think of a stupid safety one that pisses them off?


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

MarksExtra, here's one.........the DOT/Public Safety has continually passed legislation pertaining to _commercial vehicles_ [18 wheelers ect.], in an attempt to make it more _safe_, regulating and restrictions ect.
I started driving an 18 wheeler in 1985 untill 2007, part of that time [13 years] I was an owner operator. I can say that the conditions on the highway only got worse because the legislation passed only deals with the symptoms. Throw the log book away! Start ticketing dangerous drivers and the bad ones will get weeded out, all the other regulations are just about revenue.........yes, _this ticks me off._
I'm all for getting bad drivers off the road 100%, but, it can be done without a lot of unecessary BS.
That's my so-called safety [stupid] quirk that I have.


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

That's a good one. As I've already alluded. Most of the safety regulations have to do more with the government making revenue than actual safety. You've provided another good example of that. Thanks


----------



## MarksExtra (Feb 20, 2010)

One more that someone just told me about.

Friend got stopped for speeding. The officer was hiding of course(Not really worried about public safety) Officer gives the friend a ticket. Not for speeding but a lesser charge to avoid a "moving vioation" and points on license. Friend doesn't pay because he doesn't have the money. 30 days later, our much respected government doesn't wait to suspend the friends drivers' license, but rather the government just puts out a warrant for his arrest! Yup, a warrant for his arrest over $109 dollars. Hell, they should have just put him in the stockade and been done with it. Damn lawbreaker. I won't even go into whether I think law enforcement should be hiding or not, except to say that if they're there to protect the public, then they would more likely be more successful by sitting on curves in the roadway than on long straigt stretches where people would be more likely to speed. Unfortunately, it's always about money, and usually cloaked in the name of public safety.


----------



## billygoat1 (Jan 26, 2010)

I have read most have not noticed if anyone put that you and everyone has to wear there seat belts in there vehicles but my 7 year old doesn't have to wear one when he is going 30+mph down the road on a school bus.


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

billygoat1 said:


> I have read most have not noticed if anyone put that you and everyone has to wear there seat belts in there vehicles but my 7 year old doesn't have to wear one when he is going 30+mph down the road on a school bus.


I've brought this up MANY times to people. It's like I mentioned above about DOT Truck regulations......has nothing to do with safety, they come to look at the private industry as a means of revenue while avoiding the real safety issues. That doesn't mean I think that all laws are not beneficlal, but like with Big Trucks....the way to get bad drivers off the road is to write tickets for tailgating, illegal lane changing, high-speed. Log book regulations are a joke....you can never regulate whether a person sleeps or not. The new rules for trucks that came about a few years ago actually made it WORSE.


----------

