-=> On 11-01-97  20:27, L. Gault did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning Re: Childproof firearms - <=-
 
 LG> True enough, Robert, but then again, the last time I
 LG> looked, nowhere in the Constitution was caring for those
 LG> who had unhelmeted motorcycle accidents covered.
 
 RC> True - but we're faced with what is instead of what should
 RC> be.
 
 LG> If we, as conservatives, ever get into the business of
 LG> accepting "what is", then this is a country due for some
 LG> *sad* times. We've not even started to see the sorrow, yet.
There's a vast difference between "recognizing" and
"accepting". I can "recognize" and deal with current
circumstances without necessarily "accepting" and bowing to
the correctness of those circumstances. An analogy would be
the first US batalions into the death camps. They certainly
didn't "accept" what they found there, but they recognized
it for what it was and "dealt" with it.
 LG> IOW, the government has once again stepped in and made
 LG> itself our Nanny.
 
 RC> I'd prefer that those who show proof of insurance be
 RC> relieved of the helmet requirement, but those who depend
 RC> upon government assistance can't carp about government
 RC> requirements.
 
 LG> So, why not mandated condoms for every non-procreating sex
 LG> act? After all, following the same logic, if every npsa
 LG> were enacted under an enforced condom law, the risks of
 LG> sexually transmitted disease would be greatly reduced. But,
 LG> I think that is something that is not the business of our
 LG> government.
 
 RC> The flaw in your argument is that the majority of people
 RC> are NOT dependent upon the goverment for their health care.
 LG> If motorcyclists are part of the "majority of the people",
 LG> then that is a flaw in your argument, Robert.
Since motorcyclists are not part of the majority of the
people as far as health care coverage goes, that flaw
doesn't exist. 
 
 LG> As far as I know (course, I could be wrong) there has never
 LG> been a study to prove that a higher percentage of sexually
 LG> active people are insured than the percentage of motorcycle
 LG> riders. Pure conjecture on my part, but I'd be willing to
 LG> bet a dollar that the reverse is true. 
Actually, you're not concerned about the sexually active,
but rather those who engage in *risky* sexual activity. 
 RC> IOW, since the consequences of their risks do not generally
 RC> devolve upon the government as in the helmet scenario, the
 RC> government has no overriding interest.
 LG> Since the majority of motorcyclists are not (and were not,
 LG> even before enactment of helmet laws) killed by the bikes
 LG> they ride, then the same generality applies to them. 
Actually, it doesn't apply. The problem with motorcycle
accidents is the number of riders who end up as
quadraplegics and on a respirator for the remainder of
their lives. Even if privately insured initially, they all
become Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security recipients as
soon as the private health insurance benefits are
exhausted.
 LG> OTOH, even at the heyday of helmetless motorcycling, they
 LG> never came close to the expendatures that they do today for
 LG> irresponsible sexual acts.
I'll agree wiuth that.
 LG> By the same logic
There's your flaw. 
 LG> as government expense issuing governmental authority to
 LG> control, then the government should *definitely* be
 LG> intimately (excuse the pun) involved in recreational sex
 LG> acts. 
Every April 15.
 LG> Like I said, I just don't buy into that.
... 5 R's: readin', ritin', 'rithmetic, religion, and Rush!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------