Seat Belt Laws

The the Con's claim that seat belts restrict personal freedoms without a good and reasonable clause, and the very first sentence after that shows how seat belts save lives followed by an admission by the Con that seat belts are supported statistically and factually by researches proving the safety they provide. But the Con's entire argument is that these laws should be repealed on the sole grounds that people should choose whether or not they want to be safe. "When the government forces a person to wear a safety belt, they are essentially forcing that person to risk their safety"That is the exact opposite of what is really going on and the Con knows it because he has acknowledged the many lives that seat belts have already saved and will continue to save. The idea that the government is forcing people into harms way by making them wear a product proven to keep people safe is hands down, the most bullsh-t argument I have ever heard. But despite all of the Con's complete lack of logic, contradictory statements, and acknowledging the effective use of the seat belts while denouncing them for their alleged risk to people, the Con is basing his entire argument on the fact that people have the right to choose to put themselves in a position that could surely result in serious harm to themselves. 1) If you dont have the common sense to wear a seat belt for your own protection, then you are a threat to each and every other person on the road. If you dont wear a seat belt, you dont give a dam about your own protection, and that can mean that you sure as hell dont care about the safety of other drivers on the road. Why would someone who doesnt even care about themselves care about others? People who dont like to wear seat belts could be considered reckless, to themselves and other drivers, making them a very liable threat to other people, and law enforcement have a duty to protect people from reckless drivers from the safety of others. 2) The greatest harm that seat belts have ever done to people is be a little uncomfortable, they are not even close to as hazardous as your health as the Con wishes they were for his argument. 3) The Con uses the slippery slope argument to try to cause people to fear that one day the government might make them exercise routinely, however he is completely oblivious to the fact that his own ideas could cause the same thing. "Hey lets not wear seat belts, its a free country""Hey lets not put up with what that hippie over there is complaining about, lets beat him up, its a free country""Hey lets go bring some sawed off shotguns into a bank and demand money, its a free country"With excessive civil liberties and excessive rights, you have anarchy. When you have excessive regulations and laws, you have authoritarianism. The US exists today because over time it has found a balance between the two, and wearing seat belts in the name of keeping you safe isnt a large step towards dictatorship. If the Con thinks it is then I could only imagine how the Con reacted when the government wanted to put airbags into cars, the Con has always believed that it is his constitutional right to hit a tree going 60mph and have his face completely plow into the dashboard of his own car killing him on impact.....4) "seat belt laws should be repealed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional"Where in the Constitution does it allow for people to directly put themselves in harms way and risk their own lives? There is no law in there because excessive freedoms lead to anarchy, something the founding fathers were very aware of and kept in mind when drafting the Constitution. If the Con claims that seat belt laws are unconstitutional, then I challenge him to find which law is allegedly being violated. These laws exist to keep you safe, not because the government wants to control your life and every aspect of it, they just care about your safety in an industry that is far from safe. Thats why seat belt laws exist and that is why they should be enforced, for safety