April 8th, 2013 - Letter to the President: Guns and Cars
To the President and the government,
In 2011 there were 32,367 fatalities involving automobiles. That means that 3.7 people died every minute. In the course of six minutes, 22 souls were removed from life and left dead. Never to return. Never to finish their lives as they expected.
The last data I could find for children under the age of 16 was for 2006. In that year, 2170 children were killed in vehicle crashes (1 every 4 minutes, that means by the time you finish reading this, as many as 2 children will have died in car crashes). Since your administration is constantly talking about "saving just one life", where are the constant commercials from your offices about stopping this from happening?
Where is the similar outrage for the disproportionate fatalities of children when sitting in a vehicle? Why isn't Joe Biden telling the American people that they should get rid of their cars and just ride the bus? I can see him now, "You don't need that car. You just don't need it. What I tell my wife, is that she can go down to the corner, get the number 7, and that'll take her to the grocery. You just don't need that big gas guzzilin' road hog. It's not only killing the environment, it's killing our kids. And we have a mandate, 90% of Americans don't want kids to die in car accidents*. Just get yourself a bus pass."
But, he's not. Nor are you. This begs questions to be answered, that you won't bother to read, so I won't bother to ask.
When I drive, I tell myself, that I'm a good driver. I believe that my vehicle is safe. I believe that even though my jeep can reach speeds in excess of 120 miles an hour, I won't do such a thing. I believe that my tires, my lights, my brakes, my steering wheel, and all the other little functional devices are operating the way they should. I believe these things, because there is no government intrusion. I am free, as I should be, to use my vehicle to my own extent.
You see, drivers, believe in themselves when it comes to their vehicles. This is the reason why any attempt to infringe on a drivers vehicle would end in disaster. Because people, really, don't want government in their lives, they'd be upset if you told them they couldn't own a car for some reason.
Could you imagine the government coming out with similar laws as the firearms restriction laws? A law that limited the car's gas and speed capacities. After all, whom needs a car that has a 20 gallon tank, all that weight wastes gas and whom needs a car that can do more than 45 miles an hour, it's just terribly unsafe. People's schedules will change, time will mean something different, having a smaller tank would mean more gas stations, and more jobs!
Or how about laws that say you can't change the seats, exhaust tip, rims (flash suppressors, pistol grips, barrel shrouds), because by doing so you alter...well, you alter something, what ever the progressives thing those cosmetic items do to a gun, but only on a car.
Or a laws that limits how loud the radio can go, how many stickers can be on the windows, how often the oil has to be changed, how often the tires need rotation, and on the list of insane laws could go from some government agency who has the time to flesh out every single nut and bolt from a vehicle to see exactly to what extent one would need to go to make them safe.
And although, I personally believe that I have a right to transport myself how and where and when I wish, the system requires that I not only have a license to prove I can operate the vehicle, but the vehicle itself must be licensed (as if it could drive itself somewhere). Even with those things, the government pretty much stays out of the way of vehicle safety. Even, though the government doesn't believe I have the right to move freely with the aid of a vehicle, even then, they don't write ridiculous laws to protect, "just one child's life."
Yet, an absolute, written truth, that can not be infringed upon, you have the audacity to ignore or worse, alter? The lack of logic and intelligence in your argument is astounding. Mind boggling in fact. For there are a million avenues of safety that could be forced upon the people to save children, from schools, to pools, to cars, to animals, and everything in between. Yet, again, the government stays out of all of it. Stays out, except in a place that the government is told that it must stay out. There, it says, "Oh, I'm going to limit and control this one, just this one tiny little thing called a firearm!"
The only reason, the absolute only reason, is that guns equalize the playing field. Your agencies do not have authoritative superiority, when 100 million American's have guns. The only way to take full measure of control, is to remove the balance of power from the people.
That, it seems, can be the only answer: your disarming of the people.
*I've said it many times, that the 90% number that we keep hearing is patently false. If asked you if kids should be dying in car accidents you'd say no, hell everyone would say no. We'd see a genuine outpouring of support against children dying in car accidents. But if I instead asked you if you'd give up your car and take the bus to save some strangers children from the slim possibility of being killed in a traffic accident, you might not so readily agree. But the questions are this straight forward, they are designed to evoke emotions not base things on facts.
In 2011 there were 32,367 fatalities involving automobiles. That means that 3.7 people died every minute. In the course of six minutes, 22 souls were removed from life and left dead. Never to return. Never to finish their lives as they expected.
The last data I could find for children under the age of 16 was for 2006. In that year, 2170 children were killed in vehicle crashes (1 every 4 minutes, that means by the time you finish reading this, as many as 2 children will have died in car crashes). Since your administration is constantly talking about "saving just one life", where are the constant commercials from your offices about stopping this from happening?
Where is the similar outrage for the disproportionate fatalities of children when sitting in a vehicle? Why isn't Joe Biden telling the American people that they should get rid of their cars and just ride the bus? I can see him now, "You don't need that car. You just don't need it. What I tell my wife, is that she can go down to the corner, get the number 7, and that'll take her to the grocery. You just don't need that big gas guzzilin' road hog. It's not only killing the environment, it's killing our kids. And we have a mandate, 90% of Americans don't want kids to die in car accidents*. Just get yourself a bus pass."
But, he's not. Nor are you. This begs questions to be answered, that you won't bother to read, so I won't bother to ask.
When I drive, I tell myself, that I'm a good driver. I believe that my vehicle is safe. I believe that even though my jeep can reach speeds in excess of 120 miles an hour, I won't do such a thing. I believe that my tires, my lights, my brakes, my steering wheel, and all the other little functional devices are operating the way they should. I believe these things, because there is no government intrusion. I am free, as I should be, to use my vehicle to my own extent.
You see, drivers, believe in themselves when it comes to their vehicles. This is the reason why any attempt to infringe on a drivers vehicle would end in disaster. Because people, really, don't want government in their lives, they'd be upset if you told them they couldn't own a car for some reason.
Could you imagine the government coming out with similar laws as the firearms restriction laws? A law that limited the car's gas and speed capacities. After all, whom needs a car that has a 20 gallon tank, all that weight wastes gas and whom needs a car that can do more than 45 miles an hour, it's just terribly unsafe. People's schedules will change, time will mean something different, having a smaller tank would mean more gas stations, and more jobs!
Or how about laws that say you can't change the seats, exhaust tip, rims (flash suppressors, pistol grips, barrel shrouds), because by doing so you alter...well, you alter something, what ever the progressives thing those cosmetic items do to a gun, but only on a car.
Or a laws that limits how loud the radio can go, how many stickers can be on the windows, how often the oil has to be changed, how often the tires need rotation, and on the list of insane laws could go from some government agency who has the time to flesh out every single nut and bolt from a vehicle to see exactly to what extent one would need to go to make them safe.
And although, I personally believe that I have a right to transport myself how and where and when I wish, the system requires that I not only have a license to prove I can operate the vehicle, but the vehicle itself must be licensed (as if it could drive itself somewhere). Even with those things, the government pretty much stays out of the way of vehicle safety. Even, though the government doesn't believe I have the right to move freely with the aid of a vehicle, even then, they don't write ridiculous laws to protect, "just one child's life."
Yet, an absolute, written truth, that can not be infringed upon, you have the audacity to ignore or worse, alter? The lack of logic and intelligence in your argument is astounding. Mind boggling in fact. For there are a million avenues of safety that could be forced upon the people to save children, from schools, to pools, to cars, to animals, and everything in between. Yet, again, the government stays out of all of it. Stays out, except in a place that the government is told that it must stay out. There, it says, "Oh, I'm going to limit and control this one, just this one tiny little thing called a firearm!"
The only reason, the absolute only reason, is that guns equalize the playing field. Your agencies do not have authoritative superiority, when 100 million American's have guns. The only way to take full measure of control, is to remove the balance of power from the people.
That, it seems, can be the only answer: your disarming of the people.
*I've said it many times, that the 90% number that we keep hearing is patently false. If asked you if kids should be dying in car accidents you'd say no, hell everyone would say no. We'd see a genuine outpouring of support against children dying in car accidents. But if I instead asked you if you'd give up your car and take the bus to save some strangers children from the slim possibility of being killed in a traffic accident, you might not so readily agree. But the questions are this straight forward, they are designed to evoke emotions not base things on facts.
Comments
Post a Comment