lol is that real ?

My point doesn't hinge on whether it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. It hinges on sticking guns in people's faces to enforce it. You (via the state) are the aggressor here.



King's property =/= private property. King's property = all property.

William Wallace would also be against "I can't seek sustenance to survive?" "Not without the king's permission."

I was driving before the seatbelt law was passed so maybe that's why it becomes a bigger slap in the face. Still to this day fastening the seatbelt is a conscious choice I have to make, whereas my kids who grew up without an option have applying the seatbelt upon entering the truck as second nature.

I honestly don't believe in laws that are made only to protect us from ourselves, and our choices. If what we do isn't hurting anybody else, then leave us the heck alone. If I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet so be it. Drive without a seatbelt go ahead, just buckle up the kids until they are 16(or legal driving age in your state) and making their own decisions

...driving your kids without wearing your own seat belt is reprehensible .

At least here in Missouri Land owners must, (if they don't want hunters to hunt freely on their land) Post on each corner post of their property a large purple sign stating no hunting and trespassing allowed, along with those signs you must post another purple sign visible from that sign down the fence row toward the next corner. Then repeat until your property is marked visibly all around. so that if approached form any side and any point the posting can be read. If the landowner doesn't then it is understood that hunting and access is allowed on his property.

Usually Hunters will ask permission to hunt someone's land, the smart ones are courteous, mannerly, and share in the spoils. This usually turns into a successful relationship for future hunting. The assumed access is mostly for tracking a wounded deer.