What's a good reason to be against a bill requiring all passengers, even in trucks, to be buckled up?

Question

I have to come up with a few for a debate and I can only think of the farmers who have to get in and out of their trucks to check their land/livestock.

Answer 1

In a hurry or trying to run away from a killer or a burglar. U see something horrible happening and by the time u unbuckle u might be too late. u droped something need to pick up. Its hurting u, choking u. For pregnant women, might hurt their tummy or put pressure on it.

Answer 2

There is no "good" reason to be against any bill requiring all passengers, even in truck, to be buckled up.

However, since this is for a debate you might want to try using the point that 63% is not statistically high enough to warrant a legal mandate and this is proven by the amount of times state houses have voted against such a bill.

As for you. Buckle up!

Answer 3

In the United States, we cherish our personal freedom and, for the most part, will defend it vigorously. An argument could be made that most of the blood spilled in the wars we have fought, including the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, were fought over threats to personal freedoms. There must be an overwhelming benefit to society whenever a law is passed that will remove a personal freedom. The right to sit in a vehicle without being restrained by straps is yours, unless that right is removed by law. The burden is on those who would remove that right. They must prove that the benefit to society is so overwhelming that the law must be passed, so overwhelming, in fact, that all the blood spilled by all the men and women defending that right must be ignored so that our people can be protected from you sitting, unrestrained, in the back seat of a car.

Answer 4

The US Constitution allows just two purposes for the Federal government: protecting the citizenry from foreign attack and arbitrating between the States. Anything else is an infringement on our freedom. I already have parents, I don't need the government to force me to wear a seat belt, stop smoking, or lose weight. When will they stop trying to protect us from our own stupidity?!!!

Answer 5

This should give you plenty to debate on.

Seat belt laws represent unabated tyranny on the march as each year law enforcement is expanded. Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own health standards for his own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone. While seat belt use might save some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other accidents people have been more seriously injured and even killed because of seat belt use. Also, some people are alive today only because a seat belt was not used. In those cases, the malicious nature of seat belt laws is revealed: by law, the victim is subject to a fine for not dying in the accident. The government has no constitutional authority to knowingly maim and kill some people just to save others. The government has no right to take chances with a person’s body. If a doctor attempted to force you to use a device, take a drug, or have surgery to protect your health, he would be violating patients’ rights - your right to decide what measures you take to protect your own body - and he would be subject to full prosecution under the law. Yet when politicians force you to use their device, they violate that same right and face no consequences. Seat belt are an after-the-fact device. As such, not one penny of the millions of tax dollars spent in support of seat belt laws has ever prevented one accident. Conversely, because we feel safer wearing seat belts, studies have shown that we tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as “risk compensation,.” which is covered in more detail in the 1995 book, “Risk” by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England. We do not need to spend millions of dollars for more seat belt law enforcement, whether secondary or primary enforcement, for more forced seat belt use, for more traffic accidents. Any money we spend for traffic safety should focus on achieving more responsibly educated drivers, and more safely built roads and vehicles in order to prevent accidents. Preventing accidents will not only save lives but will save the cost of property damage and, most importantly, save our freedom. As with all voluntary personal health decisions, there is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use. However, there is a great deal wrong with all seat belt laws. Such laws must be repealed in order to restore true liberty in the U.S.

There is also a biblical approach you can take on it.
When You See A Man Wearing A Seat Belt
He Is Either A Non-Believer
Or A Babe In Messiah/Christ Who Knows No Better
A True Disciple Of Messiah/Christ Continually Dwells In The Hands Of The Lord

Answer 6

I suppose it would be allright for the farmer if he is driving real slow on his own land but if anyone is out on a public highway, the need to wear a seatbelt for their own protection.

Answer 7

It is called freedom. It is how the government controls people. What next no radios in vehicles.

Answer 8

Personal freedom.

Answer 9

30% of cops surveyed admitted to not wearing a seat belt. their reason it may get tangled in their belt. seat belt laws are a money making scheme.

Answer 10

Seat belts are annoying as hell, and it is my choice to protect myself. I can own a gun if I want to, but I don't take that option.