Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/7/2005 11:46:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 11:48:59 PM EDT by repub18]
I hate when people say this

Who the hell is the govt to give tax paying citizens a privilege?

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 12:03:11 AM EDT
Free travel used to be a right. Driving wasn't a priveledge until they told us it was.

When the first cars were invented, did the government have shit to say about it? Did you even need a license to drive in 1896?

Nope, didn't think so.

Nowadays, many are happy to pay homage to the king for the use of his roads, and justify every invasion into our civil liberties as necessity. But then, idiots always are the first to roll over and offer up their ass.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 12:14:32 AM EDT
Our founding fathers went to war over shit that doesn't even faze us now.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 12:20:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Our founding fathers went to war over shit that doesn't even faze us now.



Yup. Most of this board professes to admire their courage, but abide by laws that would have sent those men to war with their government.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:04:48 AM EDT
I've wanted to hear arguments for and against the "privilege" argument for quite some time. Swingset is off to a good start.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:05:18 AM EDT
Let anyone who wants to get behind the wheel have the freedom to do so. It doesn't matter if they can proficiently operate a 4 ton vehicle. It doesn't matter if they are willing to abide by safe operating proceedures. It doesn't matter what kind of vehicle.

This is America god damn it! If I want to drive a tractor trailer at 110 mph against traffic, drunk off my ass and high on drugs, well I should have the freedom to do so. Rules are for subjects. I'm a free man.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:07:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 1:08:01 AM EDT by hughjafj]
Exactly, where's my rum and coke? I'm going driving!
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:18:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
Let anyone who wants to get behind the wheel have the freedom to do so. It doesn't matter if they can proficiently operate a 4 ton vehicle. It doesn't matter if they are willing to abide by safe operating proceedures. It doesn't matter what kind of vehicle.

This is America god damn it! If I want to drive a tractor trailer at 110 mph against traffic, city, county, state roads, er . private property, drunk off my ass and high on drugs, well I should have the freedom to do so. Rules are for subjects. I'm a free man.



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:19:47 AM EDT
You want free travel?

Hit the bricks. Nobody is stopping you from travelling.

Oh, you want roads!!! And ones that will handle the weight of your 4 ton SUV!

Gotta' pay for 'em somehow.

[/devilsadvocate]
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:21:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By soowah:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

This is America god damn it! If I want to drive a tractor trailer at 110 mph against traffic, city, county, state roads, er . private property, drunk off my ass and high on drugs, well I should have the freedom to do so. Rules are for subjects. I'm a free man.






Under the regulations of my police state, you can't put a load on and operate a vehicle. Even on private property. Time to vote from the rooftops my brothers!
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:23:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 1:24:28 AM EDT by SubnetMask]
The freedom loving person in me leans towards "right" (albeit not a natural one, obviously) by default.

By declaring an activity a "right", is there any room whatsoever for infringement or reasonable restriction? If not, how do we resolve the following:

Allowing anybody - regardless of training or ability - to operate a motor vehicle, given the congested nature of our nations roads.

Allowing impaired driving, provided the driver hasn't actually harmed anybody, but understaning that he very well might.

Allowing people to ignore helpful conventions like traffic signs, speed limits, right-of-way, direction of travel, etc.


I want to believe it's a right, but it seems like so many restrictions are necessary to aid in the safety of others, that it becomes hard to consider it anything other than a privilege. Is there anything else I should consider?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:25:53 AM EDT
Driving is a right
Drinking is a right
Drinking and Driving is a crime
So your driving just became a privilege. Sorry
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:26:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:
I hate when people say this

Who the hell is the govt to give tax paying citizens a privilege?




You have a perfect Right to drive.................... on your own property, or any other private property you can legally be on.

It's when you decide to drive on the public roads, built with public funds, for the benefit of the public as a whole that driving becomes a privilege.

A license is SILLY easy to get. And unless you are a dumbass, licenses are relatively difficult to get taken away. If it does get taken away, it's because you make bad choices, are irriesonsible, a drunk, a combination of those, or some other I haven't thought of.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:26:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
The freedom loving person in me leans towards "right" (albeit not a natural one, obviously) by default.

By declaring an activity a "right", is there any room whatsoever for infringement or reasonable restriction? If not, how do we resolve the following:

Allowing anybody - regardless of training or ability - to operate a motor vehicle, given the congested nature of our nations roads.

Allowing impaired driving, provided the driver hasn't actually harmed anybody, but understaning that he very well might.

Allowing people to ignore helpful conventions like traffic signs, speed limits, right-of-way, direction of travel, etc.


I want to believe it's a right, but it seems like so many restrictions are necessary to aid in the safety of others, that it becomes hard to consider it anything other than a privilege. Is there anything else I should consider?



Rational thinking gives me a headache.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:27:04 AM EDT
Considering the insane driving I’ve seen on the highways, I pray to GOD that driving is a privilege.
If you want to own a car, there is no law saying that you cannot own one, no problem. But if you are a chronic drunk driver, if you insist on other drivers getting out of their way simply so you can go wherever you want; “the Public be damned”, or are a menace to one way or another to others people life and limb, you do not deserve to drive on the highways.

I know personally a few people who are permanently barred from ever getting behind the wheel of a car ever again.
The world is a safer place with them barred from driving. They are really bad drivers.

I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just get on the roads without some kind of licence.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:32:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By repub18:
I hate when people say this

Who the hell is the govt to give tax paying citizens a privilege?




You have a perfect Right to drive.................... on your own property, or any other private property you can legally be on.

It's when you decide to drive on the public roads, built with public funds, for the benefit of the public as a whole that driving becomes a privilege.

A license is SILLY easy to get. And unless you are a dumbass, licenses are relatively difficult to get taken away. If it does get taken away, it's because you make bad choices, are irriesonsible, a drunk, a combination of those, or some other I haven't thought of.



Another argument AGAINST a requirement to do so. If EVERYONE can get one how does that make the roads safer? I'll tell you from a place overrun by the tan clan it DOESN'T!

The law should hold people accountable for their actions not try to prevent them.

The people have the right to travel. Turning that into a privilege is criminal.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:34:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
I want to believe it's a right, but it seems like so many restrictions are necessary to aid in the safety of others, that it becomes hard to consider it anything other than a privilege. Is there anything else I should consider?



Yes. There is no oversight.

The government, because your right was taken away and a privledge installed, may do things arbitrarily that seriously impact your privacy and fundamental rights merely by playing the "priveledge" card. You don't have a right to drive, therefore they can do lots of neato things...

Random stops, DUI checkpoints, seat-belt laws, harassing enforcement, etc. None of this came at the public's vote, none of it jives with free travel. I never voted on lowering the drinking limits to .08, wearing a seat belt, letting Highway Patrol officers stop me and grill me about my destination. But, you know....all of it is for the public good. It really is, btw....but it still doesn't make it right. Not to me.

Again, we're left with a fundamental philosophical roadblock. Do you want a nice, safe, orderly slavery? Most do.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:35:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:
Considering the insane driving I’ve seen on the highways, I pray to GOD that driving is a privilege.
If you want to own a car, there is no law saying that you cannot own one, no problem. But if you are a chronic drunk driver, if you insist on other drivers getting out of their way simply so you can go wherever you want; “the Public be damned”, or are a menace to one way or another to others people life and limb, you do not deserve to drive on the highways.

I know personally a few people who are permanently barred from ever getting behind the wheel of a car ever again.
The world is a safer place with them barred from driving. They are really bad drivers.

I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just get on the roads without some kind of licence.



I hate to break it to you but lack of a license has never prevented anyone from driving who was determined to do so. Much like gun restrictions have little or averse effects on preventing crime. The illegals in my state that can't get a license......just drive illegally. The suspended drunks just drive illegally. The only thing that stops someone from driving if they want to is incarceration.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:44:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 1:46:49 AM EDT by AROptics]
Rights AND Responsibilities remember? If you are responsible and have insurance, follow traffic laws and don't drive drunk you are good to go. Might as well be a right.

If you are irresponsible, drive drunk, ignore traffic safety laws or drive uninsured then you are irresponsible and don't deserve the corresponding right of driving on our roadways.

Although...I do think calling it a privilege is an odd use of the term.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:44:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:
I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just get on the roads without some kind of licence.



Let me retype this in a way that will illustrate the gaping hole in your (and everyone else's logic behind retarded laws):

I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just buy a gun without some kind of licence.

Isn't this perfectly obvious fellas? Licenses and laws don't stop criminals or idiots. It's against the law, with serious implications, to drive drunk yet every day people do it.

Again....

The government has made what USED TO BE a right, into a priveledge and used necessity as a tool to restrict this priveledge more and more and more and let it spill into your privacy over and over again. And, you are happy to play along.

It's now illegal to smoke in bars in most cities in this country, illegal to have a lingerie party in your home for private guests in some places, it's illegal to OWN a pistol in some cities in this nation. Illegal to smoke a joint, illegal to buy model rocket engines, illegal to have a spud gun. And, it's all for everybody's good. That's right, it's all for your good. Play along, just keep playing along.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:50:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Another argument AGAINST a requirement to do so. If EVERYONE can get one how does that make the roads safer? I'll tell you from a place overrun by the tan clan it DOESN'T!

The law should hold people accountable for their actions not try to prevent them.

The people have the right to travel. Turning that into a privilege is criminal.



People have Right to travel....................... not to a particular mode of travel.

Yeah, I suppose one of the ways to hold people that are bad drivers accountable, by punishing their bad driving by keeping them from driving in the future is an illogical theory..................... If you ain'y good at something you should stop, or be stopped from doing it anymore............
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:55:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 2:01:47 AM EDT by AROptics]
With jail overcrowding driving without a license will NEVER get you any jail time where I live. Drive, Drive, Drive and Drive. Only car impounding works. The problem is laws are meant to mess with those with something to lose. The hardcore could give a rip about these laws. When they take out your kid while drunk off their ass they'll get jack squat for vehicular homicide.

Get real. The courts, border, tax laws, drug laws etc. are meaningless for the vast majority of those who routinely blow them off.

The only people who get really irked about laws is the law-abiding members of the NRA when Schumer, Feinstein and Boxer start to screw with us again.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:05:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Another argument AGAINST a requirement to do so. If EVERYONE can get one how does that make the roads safer? I'll tell you from a place overrun by the tan clan it DOESN'T!

The law should hold people accountable for their actions not try to prevent them.

The people have the right to travel. Turning that into a privilege is criminal.



People have Right to travel....................... not to a particular mode of travel.

Yeah, I suppose one of the ways to hold people that are bad drivers accountable, by punishing their bad driving by keeping them from driving in the future is an illogical theory..................... If you ain'y good at something you should stop, or be stopped from doing it anymore............



I am just making the point that until someone has an accident or an infraction no crime has been committed. Case in point, I have been riding motorcycles all my life (well, since 6th grade anyway) and while away at college my state created a requirement for an endorsement to ride a motorcycle. You could grandfather in but it was still an extra charge for your license renewal (follow the money) to get and maintain a motorcycle endorsement. I never showed off or sped on the restored 1972 BMW I rode and was pissed at the new requirement so I never got the endorsement. It is called driving without privileges and I did it for years. It was not a violation when I left for college and afterward I was never stopped, so what was my REAL crime? Not giving the king his money! Thats what! You want to charge money to use the road? Fine, but don't infringe my right of free travel under the guise of making us all safer!

I don't believe penalties should be slackened because someone is driving. If you kill someone while under the influence I believe that was premeditated. It was not an accident. I believe the posted speed limit should be a line of demarcation between manslaughter and murder. If you want to do 100MPH in a school zone feel free, but you will be looked on differently in the event of an incident. The speed itself should not be the deciding factor. I am torn though on whether local governements should have more lattitude in speed restrictions in regard to noise, etc. It's all just dreaming anyway....
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:07:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
With jail overcrowding driving without a license will NEVER get you any jail time where I live. Drive, Drive, Drive and Drive. Only car impounding works. The problem is laws are meant to mess with those with something to lose. The hardcore could give a rip about these laws. When they take out your kid while drunk off their ass they'll get jack squat for vehicular homicide.

Get real. The courts, border, tax laws, drug laws etc. are meaningless for the vast majority of those who routinely blow them off.

The only people who get really irked about laws is the law-abiding members of the NRA when Schumer, Feinstein and Boxer start to screw with us again.



Very well put, sir. In my observation though a $500 car gets around impounding. Only incarceration is guaranteed to work.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:18:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
The government, because your right was taken away and a privledge installed, may do things arbitrarily that seriously impact your privacy and fundamental rights merely by playing the "priveledge" card. You don't have a right to drive, therefore they can do lots of neato things...

Random stops, DUI checkpoints, seat-belt laws, harassing enforcement, etc. None of this came at the public's vote, none of it jives with free travel. I never voted on lowering the drinking limits to .08, wearing a seat belt, letting Highway Patrol officers stop me and grill me about my destination. But, you know....all of it is for the public good. It really is, btw....but it still doesn't make it right. Not to me.

Again, we're left with a fundamental philosophical roadblock. Do you want a nice, safe, orderly slavery? Most do.



I see where you're coming from. I'm trying to decide if you're an absolutist on this, however. In my view, some restriction is necessary. Arguing how much is necessary, is what makes debate interesting. We citizens haven't been permitted to influence policy via debate though, have we?

Perhaps "priviledge or right" is a false dichotomy. Why are we only given two choices? It does seem to make sense that as a mere privilege, it is subject to whims of the government. You're right: we didn't directly decide most of it by a vote. We indirectly decided our fate by virtue of those we elected to represent us, however. Still, if we declare it a right, there is little (if any) room for infringement, would you agree? I choose freedom over safety by default, but even I have a limit somewhere.

So perhaps driving should neither be a privilege or a right. As it stands, it is certainly a privilege and subject to gross restriction and regulation. If I wished for it to be a right - immune from all infringement - I would probably need to severely limit my driving, out of concern for my own well being. I'd welcome the freedom gained, but would loathe the reduction of my ability to peaceably travel.

Maybe it would be better if we treated restrictions on driving with the same cautioned reservation we give to the erosion of a true right, rather than declare it as an actual right. I'm not sure what word would define this behavior.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:35:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 2:39:27 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
Originally Posted By swingset:
I see where you're coming from. I'm trying to decide if you're an absolutist on this, however.



I'm an absolutist about 99% of the time, concerning rights vs. governmental intrusion.

Even, and I say this sincerely, if freedom is vastly uglier than what we live with now.

You can't give government power incrementally and not expect them to fuck you with it. Driving is a perfect illustration. It's not about safety anymore, it's about revenue and control and we're on the losing end. We've lost our common sense as a people, and expected the government to feed it to us. They, of course, cannot.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:42:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
Let anyone who wants to get behind the wheel have the freedom to do so. It doesn't matter if they can proficiently operate a 4 ton vehicle. It doesn't matter if they are willing to abide by safe operating proceedures. It doesn't matter what kind of vehicle.

This is America god damn it! If I want to drive a tractor trailer at 110 mph against traffic, drunk off my ass and high on drugs, well I should have the freedom to do so. Rules are for subjects. I'm a free man.



Illegals do it all the time and are encouraged by our government.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:59:36 AM EDT
No body is stopping anyone from their right to free travel. You do NOT have a RIGHT to drive. You DO have a RIGHT to go where you please.

driving is a privlege, NOT a right. To say that we "pay homage to the knig for use of his roads" is a statement I would expect a retard to use. We pay taxes to keep up roads, and streets. If your not happy with the current state of your roads and streets call you local rep, don't be an internet pussy and post here that your rights have been violated. Show me where it says you have a right to drive.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:14:17 AM EDT
Driving is a right when we all pay for those roads.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:23:39 AM EDT
You have the right to appy for a liscense,you have the right to feel safe sharing the roads with other liscensed drivers. You also have the right not drive. So if its such a problem do obey the laws, of this land which were inposed by people YOU put into office, then don't exercise your RIGHT, to apply for a driver's liscense.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:29:28 AM EDT
A privilige can be revoked without cause. On a whim I can remove any privilege my teenage son enjoys. You think driving is a privilege? Tell that to AARP and their lawyers.

Eddie
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:34:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:36:00 AM EDT
It's a privelige. You don't have the right to operate a 2,000+ pound vehicle filled with gasoline, let alone do it in a manner that is harmful.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:38:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SemperParatusEmt:
You have the right to appy for a liscense,you have the right to feel safe sharing the roads with other liscensed drivers. You also have the right not drive. So if its such a problem do obey the laws, of this land which were inposed by people YOU put into office, then don't exercise your RIGHT, to apply for a driver's liscense.



Then somebody screwed up because the current system does little to prevent illiterate illegals and drunks from taking to the streets as long as the governments gets their money for registration. I don't agree with a lack of accountablity for your actions on the road but the contrary. I believe drivers are insulated by the fact that they are operating a vehicle when many "accidents" happen. If you drink and drive you are committing a premeditated offense.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:39:27 AM EDT

It's a privelige. You don't have the right to operate a 2,000+ pound vehicle filled with gasoline, let alone do it in a manner that is harmful.


Take away my "privilege." No one can do so without cause. Same for your right to vote.

Yeah, it's not in the constitution, but neither is breathing.

Eddie
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:42:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:
It's a privelige. You don't have the right to operate a 2,000+ pound vehicle filled with gasoline, let alone do it in a manner that is harmful.



Then owning firearms is a privelige as well. I have the right to own and bear arms but I don't have a right to fire down the street in town. I agree with accountablity for one's actions and even traffic laws but the issuing of a license to freely travel with current technology is criminal and does nothing to make us "safer". If the roads cost money than charge us but don't make us think you are doing us a favor.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:43:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LS1Eddie:

It's a privelige. You don't have the right to operate a 2,000+ pound vehicle filled with gasoline, let alone do it in a manner that is harmful.


Take away my "privilege." No one can do so without cause. Same for your right to vote.

Yeah, it's not in the constitution, but neither is breathing.

Eddie



Actually, the 10th ammendment speaks to those.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:52:25 AM EDT
Soon they'll tax us for the rain.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:53:40 AM EDT
What I'm trying to say is, you have the RIGHT to get yuor license, but the privelige to drive. Act like an ass and your privliges get taken away. Same with firearms. You have the RIGHT to bear arms, but it is a privelige to use them since they are extremely dangerous tools.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:01:52 AM EDT
I don't agree that traveling on roads that I pay for is a privilege.....I would suggest that it is indeed a right. Just because the FF did not envision automobiles does not mean that travelling unmolested in one is not a right. That logic is the same faulty logic that the gun banners use....the 2ND should only apply to muskets.
Like all rights, your right to drive can be restricted if you engage in , and are convicted of, criminal activity (such as DWI/DUI).

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:24:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
Free travel used to be a right. Driving wasn't a priveledge until they told us it was.

When the first cars were invented, did the government have shit to say about it? Did you even need a license to drive in 1896?

Nope, didn't think so.

Nowadays, many are happy to pay homage to the king for the use of his roads, and justify every invasion into our civil liberties as necessity. But then, idiots always are the first to roll over and offer up their ass.



Still is. Nothing says you have the right to travel by car, or boat, or plane, just you have the right to travel. You have legs and feet, you can travel. Driving IS NOT A RIGHT.

Why do people think everything is their right?? Not everything is a right....driving is one of those things thats not.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:34:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
You want free travel?

Hit the bricks. Nobody is stopping you from travelling.

Oh, you want roads!!! And ones that will handle the weight of your 4 ton SUV!

Gotta' pay for 'em somehow.

[/devilsadvocate]



+1

Do you folks really believe all the sheeple are liberals??? Hell, we have a bunch in this thread alone
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:37:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:
What I'm trying to say is, you have the RIGHT to get yuor license, but the privelige to drive. Act like an ass and your privliges get taken away. Same with firearms. You have the RIGHT to bear arms, but it is a privelige to use them since they are extremely dangerous tools.



The Constitution of the United States of America maks NO reference to driving or use of public highways


...since they are extremely dangerous tools.


Do you even read what you post???
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:01:35 AM EDT
To those who say, "Where does it say you have the right to...", or, "Show me where it's written that you have the right to...", about freedoms like driving, I give you the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To those unfamiliar with this, it means that just because certain rights are spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights that people have. Remember, the Constitution is not a granting of rights to the people, but rather the listing of the (theoretically few) rights of the government to infringe on the freedom of the people. At least that was the original intent...
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:13:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
You want free travel?

Hit the bricks. Nobody is stopping you from travelling.

Oh, you want roads!!! And ones that will handle the weight of your 4 ton SUV!

Gotta' pay for 'em somehow.

[/devilsadvocate]



+1

Driving as a means of transportation is VERY infrastructure intensive. If you want the government to provide you a place to drive you can bet your ass it will cost something. I have NO PROBLEM with the state regulating transportation because I think the state has a compelling interest in keeping the roads safe both in terms of construction and user habits. I can secure my home, but without some help from law enforcement I can't change the habits of the assholes on the road (especially when my wife is in the truck).

I also damn sure happen to believe that the state should be able to revoke the driving privileges of many people. Unless you are arguing that the 9th and 10th amendments somehow cover access to operating a vehicle, there is no enumerated right to drive, and I think the non-enumerated rights don't quite go this far in any interpretation of the Constitution. Remember, even if the Constitution does extend to driving as a right it can still be regulated.

shooter
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:21:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By deej86:
It's a privelige. You don't have the right to operate a 2,000+ pound vehicle filled with gasoline, let alone do it in a manner that is harmful.



Then owning firearms is a privelige as well. I have the right to own and bear arms but I don't have a right to fire down the street in town. I agree with accountablity for one's actions and even traffic laws but the issuing of a license to freely travel with current technology is criminal and does nothing to make us "safer". If the roads cost money than charge us but don't make us think you are doing us a favor.



Right. I'm sure you'd be okay with a yearly "Road tax" instead of getting a drivers liscense. And what part of requiring a liscense is criminal. I guess Dr's getting a liscense to practice medicine is also un-constitutional. Most of the people posting here that is a their right to drive, are riddiculous. Just because you have become accustomed to dong something everyday does not make it your right to keep doing it.

You know what just throw your DL away, and ther next time you get stopped and asked for you DL just tell ol LEO you tossed it because it violates your right to free travel
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:48:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 5:51:20 AM EDT by jquillen1985]

Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:
I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just get on the roads without some kind of licence.



Let me retype this in a way that will illustrate the gaping hole in your (and everyone else's logic behind retarded laws):

I can’t help but wonder how many people would be maimed and killed if anybody who wanted to could just buy a gun without some kind of licence.

Isn't this perfectly obvious fellas? Licenses and laws don't stop criminals or idiots. It's against the law, with serious implications, to drive drunk yet every day people do it.

Again....

The government has made what USED TO BE a right, into a priveledge and used necessity as a tool to restrict this priveledge more and more and more and let it spill into your privacy over and over again. And, you are happy to play along.

It's now illegal to smoke in bars in most cities in this country, illegal to have a lingerie party in your home for private guests in some places, it's illegal to OWN a pistol in some cities in this nation. Illegal to smoke a joint, illegal to buy model rocket engines, illegal to have a spud gun. And, it's all for everybody's good. That's right, it's all for your good. Play along, just keep playing along.



Comparing getting a license to drive to getting a license for firearms is stupid. They have nothing to do with each other. Do you shoot your rifle down city street, even though you know you won't hurt anybody? Nope, but you do shoot it at ranges and private property. Just like a little kid can drive a farm truck all over the farm and back and if he was able, on a provate track if he rented the whole thing so he was the only one there. Cars are used everyday in the US by more than a hundred million people multiple times. Guns are not. By enough land to build a road from NY to LA and you can drive as recklessly as you like. Don't compare cars to guns: it makes you look dumb.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 6:01:13 AM EDT
Yup.
Licensing for drivers, registration for vehicles = driving is a privilage.
Some people want the same arrangements for firearms.

But enough with the "back in 1898" stuff. Laws governing the operation of automobiles came hot on the heels of the first autos. There were ordinances in places calling for a "crier" carrying a lantern to preceed each auto as it entered some towns! Plus lots of other nonsense. Get used to it.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 6:05:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Duffy:
Soon they'll tax us for the rain.



Uhhhh they already do. Ever look and see what the fees are for the runoff from your property into city sewers?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 6:05:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 6:10:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Rights AND Responsibilities remember? If you are responsible and have insurance, follow traffic laws and don't drive drunk you are good to go. Might as well be a right.

If you are irresponsible, drive drunk, ignore traffic safety laws or drive uninsured then you are irresponsible and don't deserve the corresponding right of driving on our roadways.

Although...I do think calling it a privilege is an odd use of the term.





Exactly!

In todays society, there are too many irresponsible fucktards, who have no concept of (or interest it) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - and unfortunately that's where everyone else (by the elected government) needs to step in and tell everyone how to behave.

If everyone acted like a responsible adults, then there would be no NEED for driver's licenses, speed limits, DUI laws, etc. - but because so many people are incable of being responsible (and as a result ENDANGER other peoples lives, which kind of infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ) we need reasonable restrictions.

Are some of the restrictions beyond reasonable - perhaps. But some are necessary.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top