This is NOT a test!

[Rodinia]

I apologize if my tone seemed harsh. It wasn't meant to be harsh. I just feel strongly about this issue. Not to make excuses but I also have a very zealous 4 1/2 year old running around yelling mama mama mama so concentration is non-exisitent and I may have misunderstood the post. Well, I'll check back later today as my young one is in need of my attention. If anyone has any ideas about how to get a petition started could you fill me in. I'm really new to this kind of thing. I think a concerted effort with any and all who wish to do the same statewide would be most effiecient. We could gather people from all over the state who wish to become involved in voicing their opinions on this seatbelt legislation.

[Russell Kanning]

Would you want to create a petition and hand all of the signatures to a polititian? I bet we could get many signatures saying "NO" to mandatory seatbelts.

[Rodinia]

Yes. I would like to start a petition stating that as a NH residents and responsible adults age 18 and over, we have the ability to make a decision that will affect our safety for better or worse. I think a handwritten and signed petition would have more impact than a bunch of names on an email personally. We could have the petitions around the state in places which we are sure they won't be destroyed or stolen. We could choose a designated guardian of each petition in each area to be responsible for submitting the petitions to whomever we conclude they'd have the most impact. We could also let the area newspapers know what we are doing.

[Lloyd Danforth]

The best thing would be to follow it up with a protest outside of the Statehouse on the day they discuss this bill.? This also applies to all of the anti-liberty bills that the study group? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHBills05/? have rated high Impact.

There may also be an index of these bills at NHLA, I'm not sure.

[intergraph19]

Would you want to create a petition and hand all of the signatures to a polititian? I bet we could get many signatures saying "NO" to mandatory seatbelts.

A petition would be great, and I'm sure there would be people willing to sign it, unfortunatly I am running into a lot of people who don't see a reason to be upset by this.  It's a small thing to them and they, like so many before them, don't see it as the small step down a long road to Socialism that it is, wrapped neatly in the guise of goodwill towards men.  But I would still sign!

[AlanM]

Completely agree with you. Why should we make people wear seatbelts then lower the consequences for hurting people while drunk.

Driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 is not the same as having an accident, and causing injury, while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs for that matter. This is another situation of gov. protecting use from "potential" harm.
Alan

What I am saying is that some benchmark number of .08 of alcohol in your blood is considered a crime. In my opinion it shouldn't be. Driving poorly/dangerously is what harms people. There are other impairments to driving, that can cause accidents. Do we want the Gov to tell us what we can and cannot do? I say no. There are lots of things in this world that can cause us harm, the GOV is NOT the protector of us all. The GOV is there, or should be there, to protect our rights. Period. End of story.
As far as seat belts are concerned, if they pass this stupid law, I will probably be the first to be arrested. And I will NOT pay a fine. They will have to send me to jail.

Than Alan, what you are saying is it is ok for the government to protect us from "potential" injury from ourselves by enforcing a seatbelt mandate while REDUCING the penalty for someone who is driving intoxicated who is far more likely to injure someone else. ?We'd be injuring OURSELVES by not choosing to wear a seatbelt while the risk of injuring another person is far far more likely while driving intoxicated. The government is to protect us from being injured by others not to protect us from injuring ourselves.

[intergraph19]

There are lots of things in this world that can cause us harm, the GOV is NOT the protector of us all. The GOV is there, or should be there, to protect our rights. Period. End of story.

I hate to split hairs here, but the Feds job is not to protect our rights.  The fed protects our borders and the state makes it easier for us all to live with each other in some semblance of order and that is all. OUR job is to protect our rights.  The government is the enemy of rights and always will be.  The Bill of rights is to protect us from the government and the founding fathers knew we would need it, and we do.  I think this is a very important point and needs to be remembered.  Never let the government fool you into thinking they are there for your benefit. 

[AlanM]

Good points intergraph. Go ahead and split hairs if you want. Maybe then I'll have twice as much hair!!! 

[Rodinia]

Hi intergraph, Rodinia here. I don't think that quote on your post is mine......I don't recall writing that at all and I couldn't find it on the board.
I believe that the governments role in protection is allowing recourse for crimes against us.

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe intergraph19 works in the media. 

[Rodinia]

Lol Russel. Ok, so if anyone was listening to Against the Grain yesterday, you'd have heard Pilliod's feeble attempt at defending his bill. It was seriously silly. Anyway, he mentioned that it could go to hearing in as little as 2 weeks time. I say we really need to get a move on with the petitions. Anyone who wishes to designate themself a guardian of a petition please, lets do. I think we have a guy who will bring the petitions into the hearing as well as we can protest outside the state building on said day. Lets really do this people. Lets walk the walk and be called dirty things like.....freedom lover or radical.

[AlanM]

Hi intergraph, Rodinia here. I don't think that quote on your post is mine......I don't recall writing that at all and I couldn't find it on the board.
I believe that the governments role in protection is allowing recourse for crimes against us.

That quote was mine. AlanM

[intergraph19]

Completely agree with you. Why should we make people wear seatbelts then lower the consequences for hurting people while drunk.

Driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 is not the same as having an accident, and causing injury, while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs for that matter. This is another situation of gov. protecting use from "potential" harm.
Alan

What I am saying is that some benchmark number of .08 of alcohol in your blood is considered a crime. In my opinion it shouldn't be. Driving poorly/dangerously is what harms people. There are other impairments to driving, that can cause accidents. Do we want the Gov to tell us what we can and cannot do? I say no. There are lots of things in this world that can cause us harm, the GOV is NOT the protector of us all. The GOV is there, or should be there, to protect our rights. Period. End of story.
As far as seat belts are concerned, if they pass this stupid law, I will probably be the first to be arrested. And I will NOT pay a fine. They will have to send me to jail.

Than Alan, what you are saying is it is ok for the government to protect us from "potential" injury from ourselves by enforcing a seatbelt mandate while REDUCING the penalty for someone who is driving intoxicated who is far more likely to injure someone else.  We'd be injuring OURSELVES by not choosing to wear a seatbelt while the risk of injuring another person is far far more likely while driving intoxicated. The government is to protect us from being injured by others not to protect us from injuring ourselves.

That's where I got the quote from.  I tried to edit it down to just the point I was commenting on, but I may have grabbed the wrong name.  I'm still trying to figure out how to read a mass of quotes like that.  Sorry.

[intergraph19]

Lol Russel. Ok, so if anyone was listening to Against the Grain yesterday, you'd have heard Pilliod's feeble attempt at defending his bill. It was seriously silly. Anyway, he mentioned that it could go to hearing in as little as 2 weeks time. I say we really need to get a move on with the petitions. Anyone who wishes to designate themself a guardian of a petition please, lets do. I think we have a guy who will bring the petitions into the hearing as well as we can protest outside the state building on said day. Lets really do this people. Lets walk the walk and be called dirty things like.....freedom lover or radical.

Agreed.  This needs to be moved on quickly.  And listening to Pilliod yesterday made me sputter at the radio like an enraged boar.  I'm sure the people in the cars around me must have thought I was deranged.

[Rodinia]

I agree we need to move quickly. Any and all who want to write a petition, please do so. As many signatures as we can get will be great. If someone could decide to be responsible for a petition in their area and bring it to the state house on the day of the hearing, that'd be even better. I've already written to all my local legislators and put up some info at my local laundrymat. I'll be placing several petitions this weekend. I've contacted a friend of my father-in-law who writes an article for a paper in south/mid NH. When he gets back to me, I'll ask him to see if he can submit a small piece and get people rallied up there. You know, small town woodsy folk who don't like their liberties messed with.
I'm working with a friend to get a group together for a protest as soon as we find out when the hearing is going to be. Anyone with ideas or suggestions, please let me know. I'm fairly certain my email is linked to my posts so feel free to email me personally.