BuffettNews.com

Wow....I'm stunned.
My husband just met him in Sturgis.....brought me back an autographed t-shirt.....what a treasure it is now.
He said that he was the nicest guy, spent a lot of time talking to the bikers and showing off the bikes.....
Sail On, Larry.....

Lastplaneout wrote:Wow...goes from a thread to honor a legendary motorcycle builder....to the ignorance of those who don't wear helmets....geez...see what happens when I leave you unattended

you arent paying attention.it is about the ignorance of a legendary bike builder who died because he wouldnt wear a helmet

tommcat327 wrote:

Lastplaneout wrote:Wow...goes from a thread to honor a legendary motorcycle builder....to the ignorance of those who don't wear helmets....geez...see what happens when I leave you unattended

you arent paying attention.it is about the ignorance of a legendary bike builder who died because he wouldnt wear a helmet

dude, if you dont have anything positive to say, dont say anything at all. he was a great man and it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

if i die and someone starts a thread about me, i hope its not full of "he was so ignorant." lets HONOR Indian Larry!

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

While we're honoring and remembering people, let's not forget about William "Pete" Snell. There's a reason the Snell Foundation was created.

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:

tommcat327 wrote:

Lastplaneout wrote:Wow...goes from a thread to honor a legendary motorcycle builder....to the ignorance of those who don't wear helmets....geez...see what happens when I leave you unattended

you arent paying attention.it is about the ignorance of a legendary bike builder who died because he wouldnt wear a helmet

dude, if you dont have anything positive to say, dont say anything at all. he was a great man and it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

if i die and someone starts a thread about me, i hope its not full of "he was so ignorant." lets HONOR Indian Larry!

dude,if you dont like something i say......go away.he died because he refused to wear a helmet.that is a fact,not my opinion

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

While we're honoring and remembering people, let's not forget about William "Pete" Snell. There's a reason the Snell Foundation was created.

and snell protects my head on a regular basis.and has saved my life once.unlike larry i like my head

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

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.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

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.

Does that mean standing on a moving motorcycle without a helmet is a religion? Its a shame that the First Amendment only applies to recognized religions. Or maybe Larry was speaking while he was on the bike? Oh no wait, I know, he "assembled" with the ground and now he is guaranteed a place to grieve.

I knew I should have paid more attention during my government classes.

land_shark3 wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

I knew I should have paid more attention during my government classes.

You should have... it's the whole "free speech" part.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

I knew I should have paid more attention during my government classes.

You should have... it's the whole "free speech" part.

So based on "free speech", I should be allowed to drive without my seat belt? I should be able to do 80 in a 25 because it expresses my content for government mandated laws?

Not wearing a helment is NOT a "free speech" movement. Its called idiocy.

land_shark3 wrote:
Not wearing a helment is NOT a "free speech" movement. Its called idiocy.

You said that there is nothing in the constitution about standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact there is - free speech.

Larry was exercising his freedom of speech by standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. It may ALSO be stupid, but the Constitution doesn't distinguish between stupid speech and not so stupid speech.

land_shark3 wrote:

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:it was his constitutional right to do what he did.

Larry was quite a creative guy, but I don't seem to remember the Constitution saying anything about standing on a bike with no helmet.

While we're honoring and remembering people, let's not forget about William "Pete" Snell. There's a reason the Snell Foundation was created.

it's in the AZ constitution.... really..... just hope he was an organ donor.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:
Not wearing a helment is NOT a "free speech" movement. Its called idiocy.

You said that there is nothing in the constitution about standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact there is - free speech.

Larry was exercising his freedom of speech by standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. It may ALSO be stupid, but the Constitution doesn't distinguish between stupid speech and not so stupid speech.

SO USING THAT ARGUMENT DOESNT THAT MEAN THAT FREE SPEECH(AND THE CONSTITUTION) IS ILLEGAL IN THIS AND MANY OTHER STATES?

Well put Lee, I myself have always worn a helmet, but if you don't wanna it's ok with me. So long as I don't have to pay your medical bills.

tommcat327 wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:
Not wearing a helment is NOT a "free speech" movement. Its called idiocy.

You said that there is nothing in the constitution about standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact there is - free speech.

Larry was exercising his freedom of speech by standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. It may ALSO be stupid, but the Constitution doesn't distinguish between stupid speech and not so stupid speech.

SO USING THAT ARGUMENT DOESNT THAT MEAN THAT FREE SPEECH(AND THE CONSTITUTION) IS ILLEGAL IN THIS AND MANY OTHER STATES?

And while we are worried about free speech, even though our religious beliefs are protected, we better not say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is all too silly for me, so I'm out of here.

tommcat327 wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:
Not wearing a helment is NOT a "free speech" movement. Its called idiocy.

You said that there is nothing in the constitution about standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact there is - free speech.

Larry was exercising his freedom of speech by standing on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. It may ALSO be stupid, but the Constitution doesn't distinguish between stupid speech and not so stupid speech.

SO USING THAT ARGUMENT DOESNT THAT MEAN THAT FREE SPEECH(AND THE CONSTITUTION) IS ILLEGAL IN THIS AND MANY OTHER STATES?

No.

I'd have to research it to find out how it's reasoned, but my sense is that it can only be reasoned in one of two ways:

1) Freedom of speech can be limited when the concern is the greater public good. I suspect public officials would argue that the overall safety concern and potential for the states to incur expenses from injured motorcyclists not wearing helmets would be their primary arguments for saying that it serves the public good to limit free speech in this case. I'm not saying I agree with any of this - I'm just telling you how it would have to go down.

2) The second option would be to argue that driving a motorcycle is not a constitutionally protected form of speech (since they grant you a license). As such, they can limit your speech as it relates to the motorcycle in any way they want.

land_shark3 wrote: And while we are worried about free speech, even though our religious beliefs are protected, we better not say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is all too silly for me, so I'm out of here.

Separation of Church and State - that's vastly different. On the one hand we're talking about an INDIVIDUAL's right to express their religion and speech. On the other, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT sanctioning a particular set of beliefs over another.

Your freedom of religion IS protected - YOU can say the pledge any way you want... no one will stop you or even be bothered...

The issue over the pledge is only in how GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS present it and whether that creates a violation of separation of church and state...

Lee, how do vehicular regulations (helmet/seat belt use, speed limits, DUI) fall under the 1st Amendment? Especially considering the bulk of such regulations are left up to the discretion of the individual states.

pair8head wrote:Well put Lee, I myself have always worn a helmet, but if you don't wanna it's ok with me. So long as I don't have to pay your medical bills.

I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM KILLING THEMSELVES.IT'S JUST THINNING OF THE HERD IN MY OPINION

rednekkPH wrote:Lee, how do vehicular regulations (helmet/seat belt use, speed limits, DUI) fall under the 1st Amendment? Especially considering the bulk of such regulations are left up to the discretion of the individual states.

I'm saying that Larry standing on a motorcycle with no helmet in a private setting clearly falls under the first amendment.

I'm also saying that I think it can be ARGUED that choosing not to wear a helmet is a form of speech - how can you argue that it's not?

But ultimately I suspect that most state courts would rule that the particular form of speech does not outweigh the state's vested interest in limiting that speech to minimize the state's liability.