I like making my way to the good old Helmet Law Defense League's guest book on occasion to read the lidless crybabies' postings. I either laugh at them or pity the ignorant asses that support the league's cause. Well, during my reading, a particular post by "Colorado Jay" caught my eye. I just had to help the poor dumb bastard and set him straight.

This was posted by “Colorado Jay”

Name: Colorado Jay
Date: February 01 2004
Email Address:
Homepage: http://
Comments:
This whole helmet issue is about freedom of choice. If someone chooses to wear one, fine. Anyone who thinks that they have the right to dictate to me that I MUST wear one is arrogant. As we all know, arrogant people are mentally deficient.

I posted this after reading the nonsense Jay posted.

This is directed to "Colorado Jay" and anybody else who thinks that helmets are a violation of your so called "Freedom of Choice". When it comes to motor vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) there are no applied “freedoms". Driving any vehicle is not a right, it’s a privilege issued to you on a conditional basis by the state you're licensed in. If driving was a right, they couldn’t take it away from you, no matter how fast you drive or how intoxicated you are behind the wheel, but they can, and they do. The reason a state issues you a license is because you are operating your vehicle on a PUBLIC ROAD. Don't misunderstand who a public road belongs to. It does not belong to the public. It is used by the public, but it belongs to the state or higher government. Therefore, since you are operating your vehicle on a state owned road, the personnel running that state has every right, as elected officials, to apply any rules they see fit in the interest of the common good. It’s far from arrogant. The only arrogance, not to mention ignorance, here is yours. I would have emailed this directly to you, but you failed to leave your email address. Mine is below. Feel free to contact me whenever you get the nerve. That goes for any of you.

A day later, this was added to my post by Dick Quigley:

NOTE: "The right to travel on and along the streets of a city belongs to the general public, and does not belong to its denizens alone. The right to travel being in the general public everywhere, all person have a right to pass along and use the streets and alleys of a city in all their parts, the full width and length thereof. The municipality, which is a mere trustee of the public, and hold the streets and alleys in trust for that public, cannot deny the right of the public to use the streets and alleys. It cannot assume an exclusive ownership, and deny the right of the beneficiaries under their trust, and arrogate to itself a power greater than that of a mere trustee, and prevent the use of the streets and alleys by individual members of the public." (The Law — not the unfounded drivel of some know-it-all rude little shit who begs for the weight of the chains. If he keeps coming back and spreading his thin-lined crap all over the place, we'll see what we can do about having his internetconnection unplugged — what the Hey, using the internet isn't a right anyway, right?) quig

To which I responded:

Is that the best Dick has? I have to laugh. Mr. Quig quoting the law. Which law you may ask? I’m not sure. There is no state, provision, chapter, or article listed. Since quoting laws seems to be the theme, here is one that at least relates to my point:

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 12500-12527
12500.

1. No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.
2. No person shall drive any motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license or endorsement issued under this code for that class, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code, or those persons specifically authorized to operate motorized bicycles with a valid driver's license of any class, as specified in subdivision (g) of Section 12804.9.
3. No person shall drive a motor vehicle in or upon any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license of the appropriate class or certification to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision, "offstreet parking facility" means any offstreet facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet parking, and privately owned facilities for offstreet parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers.
4. No person shall drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.

Never once did I mention anything about the rights of using the road, only the rules that mandate it. Dick is correct that the public has every “Right to travel on and along the streets of a city”. However, the conditions in which you travel down that road are limited by the same laws that give you the right to use it. You try riding down any road, in any town, on any street legal motorcycle, and get pulled over by any cop, and you’re not licensed, the next right you’re going to enjoy is the right to remain silent (Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but you get the point). At minimum, they are going to give you a ticket, make you leave the bike and have you call a licensed rider to come pick it up, if you’re lucky enough to not have it impounded. That is also the law, and hardly unfounded drivel, Dick!

What’s my point? It’s simple really. You people use the word “right” as a guise. You use it as an excuse. You’re all a bunch of image-driven snivelers who won’t accept the fact that helmets save lives for the sake of your self-indulgent and destructive sense of fashion. You’re a league of spin-doctors feeding on the naivety, pride, and ignorance of society’s lowest common denominator and counter any opposing views with insults, half-truths, and whole-lies. You’re actually encouraging people to risk their lives to look “cool”. Anybody who buys your crap should have their head examined before it ends up smeared all over the tarmac.

What I find truly deplorable is that your wiles are actually influencing lawmakers to change laws. I guess that old saying is right. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, and that includes the legislators.

I think Mike Seate of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review put it best when he wrote: “[The anti-helmet advocates] have found a ready audience among opportunistic politicians willing to jeopardize the safety -- and the insurance rates -- of our state's two-wheeled commuters in exchange for a chance to appear opposed to big government.”

The way I see it, some (not all) politicians are using you and your cause as a way to get votes and develop their careers. Simple-minds are easily swayed. Of course, you already know this. It’s the foundation for your whole cause.

On the internet connection issue, give it your best shot. There is one thing stopping you from ever stopping me. Since you seem to like spouting about rights so much, try this one on for size:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You use it to spread your drivel, and so will I.

Me Duce Tutus Eris. Semper Vigilo

Red

You people are pathetic. How do you guys ever get anything done is beyond me. Instead of posting a legitimate counterpoint to any point I make, you simply erase my entries off your guest book. I guess you can’t afford for your followers to hear even a shred of truth, can you. You are truly a sad little bunch.

Well, I never got an e-mail back from the HLDL or Quig. I did go back to their guest book and noticed that every posting I have ever made had been removed from the guest book, as well as other people's postings contrary to their cause. Ho dee hum. After discovering that they had removed all my messages, I laughed and sent them this email:

You people are so damn sad. You can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it. I post valid arguments, and instead of countering them, you just remove them? Does common sense or the truth hurt your cause? I think it does. In a way I find it flattering. It would seem that you consider me a threat. Too funny!!

Well, you keep filling people’s heads with lies, and then I’ll educate them on the truth.

I won’t post to your guest book anymore (it’s futile to fight with cowards). But anybody who leaves their e-mail will get a nice message from me. Have a nice day.

Red

A few hours later, I got this e-mail from the infamous Quig:

Nusance . . . an under-educated, over-confident, childish nusance.

The only reason we can figure for your obsession with us must have something to do with your mother finger-fucking you in the ass when you were an infant . . . either that or you're 12.

bye

BWAAA HA HA HA! Holy shit! You misspell nuisance have the nerve to call me uneducated. You are stupid enough to get on a bike lidless and I’m uneducated. You make me laugh. Does your ignorance know no bounds? BWAAA HA HA HA!!!

Red

This guy has no sense. If he was as intelligent as he claims to be, he wouldn't respond the way he does. Sure, I've been a tad brash before, but my rudeness was at least mixed in with a valid point. Quig is just an egocentric, small-minded, shit-talker, and he knows it.