Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/18/2001 4:03:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 4:28:51 PM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:18:10 AM EDT
its a privelege..that's why you have a license that can be revoked at any time. although some people do drive without one, at which time it becomes a crime. a right on the other hand is something that is God given. no one can take it away from you because its an abstract thing.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:18:46 AM EDT
I agree very strongly, something does not need to be specifically spelled out as a right in order to be one. Just as firearms, I believe that up until one is proven to be incapable of ownership/operation of a device there should be no law restricting it's use. Roads are publicly paid for through taxes, whether or not you drive, you pay for the roads, so the argument of road use is out, they are by default yours already. Driving is NOT a priviledge, nor is the licencing system adequate to keep nonlicenced drivers off the road anyhow. licencing and tagging is just another taxation system, pure and plain, stop deluding yourselves that it's anything but. I just had to pay over $1,000 to tag 2 new cars, what did THAT have to do with public safety or access? Nothing. Just another tax. And don't get me going on the road cameras to catch violations. Or building codes. Or neighborhood codes. Or "laws" about parking on your lawn or can you keep a junker at your house. Good GOD man, it angries up my blood! I'd better quit while I can! Now I have to go take my 2000 F150 in to the shop for transmission work! Bah! Lemme go.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:20:54 AM EDT
In response to Redray: they have enacted the licencing system i/o to condition you to the "fact" that it's a priviledge, not because it actually is. Think about it. Does having a CCW permit mean that carrying a gun by a lawful citizen is a priviledsge?
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:23:14 AM EDT
It's a privelege. You have the right to come and go. How you do so is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:30:06 AM EDT
Sweep: you have the right to travel. You don't have right to do it by driving. I think that there was a built in safety feature with horse and buggy. The good sense of the horse. You say you see idiots on the road?? how do you KNOW they do have licenses? ph119: yes those building codes, the rascals trying to keep someone from building a death trap, the nerve. If you you mean "covenants" yes they are a bummer, then again if you were trying to sell your house and you lived next to a guy who didn't mow the lawn, had several dead cars on the lawn, you'd probably get hurt in the wallet. So who knows there. Yes, except in Vermont a CCW does allow you the privilege to carry a firearm concealed. You have the right to Keep and Bear Arms, which doesn't cover concealed carry.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:32:53 AM EDT
ph119 owning a firearm is a right. i know that some state laws seem to deny you that right (seem? they goddamn do!), that same right is intrinsic to your existence. this is what i believe. this is what i live by. self-defense with a weapon of your choice or without one is a right. i dont have to have a CCW permit where i live because over here, we are aware of what i just told you above. driving is and always will be a privelege.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:35:14 AM EDT
Well, I suppose that since "how" is not specifically spelled out, then that could as well be construed to give the powers that be the dominion over "how" to the extent that they can as well dictate your particular "mode" of transportation, then? No SUV's (bad mileage), no four doors if you don't have kids, etc. etc. etc. Why not? Guys, once again, just because something is not SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the constitution as a right do es *NOT* mean that it isn't !!!!
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:36:53 AM EDT
lordtrader & redray, read the tenth: [i][b][size=3]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/i][/b][/size=3] It is a right that we as citizens have allowed the state politicians to manipulate into a privilege. We have subjugated another right to the government. So it once WAS a right, but we have allowed it to become a privilege.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:37:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 4:35:55 AM EDT by redray]
ph119 i dont know if we are arguing or agreeing with each other. i think i need more coffee...ill brb. mtn patriot, what i said above goes for you too....on to my coffee hunt..........
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:42:36 AM EDT
yeah, I DID mean covenants, not codes. And you're right,living next to the slob COULD hurt me in the wallet, but I guess I just take Liberty to the extreme. I believe in an individual's right to his property. And if that means that I have to live next to the boho that has 3 El Caminos in his uncut yard and a peeling pink painted house, oh well, God Bless America! And DON"T GET ME GOING on "immenent domain", or whatever you'd call it when the city or state wants to build and they just low-ball property owners out of their houses! GRRRRRR! But then, some call me exreme.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:47:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 4:44:47 AM EDT by mtnpatriot]
Originally Posted By ph119: But then, some call me exreme.
View Quote
Sounds to me like you are a flaming liberal! [;)]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:50:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ph119: Guys, once again, just because something is not SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the constitution as a right do es *NOT* mean that it isn't !!!!
View Quote
Just b/c something is not spelled out does not mean it is a right either. If that is the best reasoning you can rely upon then you need something better. And if you want we can sit around and dream up new rights. Let's be honest the fouding fathers could have included other "rights" but did not, does that mean there aren't any, no, it just means that the ones listed were the ones they could agree upon.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:11:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:30:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 5:37:14 AM EDT by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:49:54 AM EDT
A privilege.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:11:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:12:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 6:12:01 AM EDT by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:15:28 AM EDT
I tend to believe driving is a priviledge. But just let 'em try to take my "priviledge" away, and they'll quickly learn about my rights!!! (just kidding DMV!!!) If driving IS a right, it is a "Tier Two" right - somewhere beneath my Second Amendment RIGHTS.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:48:43 AM EDT
Sweep: I think people have already given an arguement why driving is a privilege, you make not like or agreem with it but I think its been given.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:21:13 AM EDT
You have the [b]right to travel[/b], to move about. You may obtain the [b]privilege of driving[/b] on the Nation/State/Locality's improved roadbeds, only by complying with the rules regarding the use of the roadways. Think about it. You would never consider getting on a bus/train/trolley and thinking that since 'traveling' is a right, that mode of transportation is available for free, would you? Why can't you just drive a half-track down the Interstate? And since it's a right, how can the police tell you how to exercise that right by posting traffic controls, speed limits, etc? Eric The Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:27:36 AM EDT
MOD, As far as I can see, here are the only two arguments that have been advanced to contend that driving is a privilege: 1) It can be taken away. 2) It's not specifically listed in the Constitution. Argument #1 is very poor. Almost anything can be taken away from you--your freedom, your privacy, your family, even your life. This is basically the argument that might makes right, which is tyranny. If this board stands for anything, it ought to stand against tyranny. Argument #2 has a little more merit, especially when stated as you did, that the founding fathers thought about what rights to enumerate. But I think it is still lacking. One thing the Anti-Federalists deeply feared was that the list of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights would someday come to be seen as the preferred list of rights and that rights not on the list would be seen as lesser rights. The list in the Bill of Rights is more a list of rights historically in danger of being abused by governments than it is a list of all the rights they could agree on. I'm not sure where exactly I would fall on the driving right/privilege. Freedom of travel seems to me to be a basic right. But when you are using a mode of travel that poses a fairly significant danger to other people, is it reasonable to try to regulate that? I think it is very much like firearms. There should be a lot of instruction on safety and such, but that probably doesn't need to fall to the government. The government's main (or only?) role should be to punish those who severely abuse the right and endanger others.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:30:15 AM EDT
Seems to me that I recently,<1yr., read a article of some legal presidence, that if your vehicle has a "title", you ineffect do not technicnicly own it, it belongs to the state that issued the title. Anybody help me out here?
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:30:52 AM EDT
I agree with what some others have said...travelling is a right. Operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is a privilege because the road system was not a naturally-ocurring phenomenon...it was built at a very high cost for the purpose of safe travel by the public. That said, I don't think checkpoints are constitutional because they are not looking for things that make you an unsafe driver, they are looking for other ways to bust you.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:48:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 7:48:04 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By 762NATO: Seems to me that I recently,<1yr., read a article of some legal presidence, that if your vehicle has a "title", you ineffect do not technicnicly own it, it belongs to the state that issued the title. Anybody help me out here?
View Quote
Huh?? when I bought my house part of the process was a deed, which is title to the house/property. Are you saying I don't own the property? I thought not. How would it be different with a vehicle?? If you register a vehicle the plates still belong to the state that issued them but that is a different situation. Could it be that is what you are thinking of? What publication was it in? If it was something that also had an article on the new summer tin-foil-beanies.........someone is espousing there theory on vehicle ownership that keeps them from paying for the transfer/registration.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:54:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 7:53:05 AM EDT by 762NATO]
No-AR, I can`t find the damn reference. Don`t remember exactly how it went, but basicly, it said you own it, but no you don`t. By the way, I don`t wear tin foil as a fashion accesory.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:01:01 AM EDT
YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR HOUSE!!!!...excuse my screaming. Ya don't believe me do you.....stop paying your property taxes(government rent on YOUR house) and see how long you keep it.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:02:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 762NATO: No-AR, I can`t find the damn reference. Don`t remember exactly how it went, but basicly, it said you own it, but no you don`t. By the way, I don`t wear tin foil as a fashion accesory.
View Quote
Ok, no need to get excited, I just thought you may have read something from the t-f-b crowd. I wasn't making the assumption that you had a t-f-b. It just sounds to strange, I think that that is just wrong.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:06:32 AM EDT
From all us subjects we gratefully thank you the ruling class for bestowing upon us this sacred "privelege" we realize that without you we are lost.... if in the future you see fit to revoke any other RIGHTS, please do so because, after all its for our own good. IT'S ONLY A PRIVELEGE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE GOVT. TO MAKE IT ONE !!!!! FREEDOM !!!!! [%(]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:10:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR HOUSE!!!!...excuse my screaming. Ya don't believe me do you.....stop paying your property taxes(government rent on YOUR house) and see how long you keep it.
View Quote
For a second there I thought you had me and was going to say the mortgage company owned it. Does that mean I don't earn wages at work since those are taxed too? Your theory is wrong. If the government owned the house and I stopped paying taxes I would be out, in an instant. But since I own it and it is taxed a real property if I stopped paying they would have to go through a process to sieze it. If they did that they would sell it and I would get whatever was payed for the house in excess of the owed taxes.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:11:58 AM EDT
No-AR, No excitement factor. Sadly though, the strangest, most perverse things, I find to be true, the best I can come up with is Hmmmm. Just look at how we`ve gone from being a Constitutional Republic, (America), to a democracy, (modified mob-rule), (Amerika), thanks to the socialists, (goverment/educators).
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:16:29 AM EDT
This is what I was thinking about this past weekend... Driving on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I do not need a licence correct? I do not need a legaly inspected car. I can go as fast as I want. Take that a little further to guns. IF I keep my guns on my own property, I should be able to have a M16. Full auto beltfeds. Mags of any size, supressors etc... [:D]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:17:10 AM EDT
I have read that originally under the law, driver's licenses were required only for cars being operated for commercial use, but has been perverted, just like social security #'s, into something it was never intended to be.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:17:13 AM EDT
With regard to ownership of the motor vehicles, I saw an article posted on here some time back and felt it was basically as No-AR is describing it--somebody's legal mumbo-jumbo loophole to get out of paying for registration. But it also sounded like a sure-fire way to go to jail for what would otherwise be a simple traffic stop. I didn't think the writer was worth responding to at the time, and I've since forgotten it. I don't think it was from a reputable source, though. Don't know if it's the same one that 762NATO is referring to. Hound, I think you're confusing two separate issues: property taxes and property ownership. The government does not own your house (or my house). Assuming the house hasn't been put up for collateral on a loan, you could tear it down if you wanted and leave an empty lot. No owner would let you do that. If you have a mortgage on your house, the mortgage holder wouldn't even let you do that, but it's pretty clear they don't own your house either. You are correct that we cannot make ourselves independent of the government. But the fact that the government will come after you for nonpayment of taxes does not say anything about your ownership.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:20:08 AM EDT
Just look at how we`ve gone from being a Constitutional Republic, (America), to a democracy, (modified mob-rule), (Amerika), thanks to the socialists, (goverment/educators).
View Quote
Yup, and who do we have to blame? Ourselves. We have a need/hate relationship with government. We want prisons, roads, and schools, and garbage pick-up, and Pell Grants, and subsidies for industry. Not to mention Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, and National Defense. But when we get our tax bills we go ballistic. So many people expect the government to be there making sure they have acces to medical care, and housing etc. It's a situation we put ourselves into.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:21:17 AM EDT
Just make curtain that before you tear your house down, you have the proper "demolition permit".Bwahaha!
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:29:01 AM EDT
7: kinda maybe. If you are on private property that is open to the public you would need all that stuff. If you are in your farm field have at it, hell you can even drive drunk in your private farm field. But there is still a catch, if you endanger someone you could still be arrested for criminal Reckless Driving. If you seriously injure or kill someone driving drunk on private propeerty they can still get you for the DUI-Homicide or DUI Great Bodily Harm. At least in WI. If your contention with the gun is I'm on my property I can do what I want, well no just like you can't have cocaine on your property, or kill someone on your property, where you are isn't as important as th conduct.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:40:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:41:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:41:33 AM EDT
Why are there so few here, amongst the ostensibly more hirstute, that cannot agree that driving your vehicle on roads your taxes have already paid for, amongst MANY other things, is an undeniable right which we as a citizenry have allowed to be perverted into a priviledge vis-a-vis a tax scheme and nothing more? It's really very simple, and I must admit I am shocked at some of the names I am seeing chime in with "Priviledge". Just as one poster argued that we could sit about all day and make up new "rights", the antithesis is already underway- some people DO sit about all day and make up new things to convince us are "priviledges", and we let 'em. Rant most DEFINITELY NOT OFF !!!
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:53:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:54:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 10:49:09 AM EDT by SGB]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:56:23 AM EDT
Do you have a right to fly an airplane without a license? Do you have a right to practice surgery without a medical degree? Do you have a right to scream "fire" in a theater? In my opinion, yes to all three. However, you have no constitutional protection from the consequences of these acts.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:57:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 8:58:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 9:01:25 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
You know I may start to wonder why your license was suspended. Or are you just still worked up about paying for the registration? Driving is a privilege. If it wasnt anyone could do it, 5 year old kid, 105 year older who is legally blind, chronic drunk driver. It is a matter of safety I have the right not to have some moron plow into me. The license is supposed to show that basic skills have been attained and you can safely operate a 4,000 lb vehicle that develops 1,000,000 ft lb of energy at below highway speeds. Try getting that kinda power out of a small arm. The government does have the responsibilty to protect citizens even if it is from other citizens. If It was a right there would need to be trials to remove that right, probably couldn't have DUI laws "i have right to drive, so what if i'm drunk, it's my right to drive". Etc. Plus the SCOTUS has said it is a privilege. And before someone says "they can't interpret the Constutition, I say driving is a right". The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution, it says so in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 9:23:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 10:00:58 AM EDT by hound]
Excellent replies to my my post about Home "ownership"...so many many examples of why you do not own your house....permits, licenses, zoning restrictions, housing authority....But on to another topic----No Ar..please replace everything you said about cars with the word guns and see if you didn't plagiarize a million mom march speech. editied cuz i Kant spel
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 9:35:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 9:36:48 AM EDT by MOD]
To the you don't own your own house crowd let me say that is BS. I'm listed as he owner on my mortgage not the gov. While the gov may have a lien on my house in the form of the un-paid tax, they most certainly do not own it. A lien for those of you is a charge upon real or personal property for the satisfaction of some debt or duty ordinarily arising by operation of law. So when the tax is paid the hold gov has is gone, buh-bye As for the other, I'm still waiting for you Sweep to provide some evidence that it is a right. Let me also add though the the gov didn't use to build roads, many were toll roads.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 10:01:50 AM EDT
Priviledge
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 10:24:34 AM EDT
>>Why are there so few here, amongst the ostensibly more hirstute, that cannot agree that driving your vehicle on roads your taxes have already paid for, amongst MANY other things, is an undeniable right which we as a citizenry have allowed to be perverted into a priviledge vis-a-vis a tax scheme and nothing more?<< Perhaps because that is incorrect? Your taxes have paid for nuclear submarines---try getting onto one of those without permision. Or show up at the next space shuttle launch and try to calim your seat. Just because your taxes pay for it doesn't mena you have a right to use it. Travelling on a public roadway has always been a privilige that can be granted, with-held, and/or controlled. The drivers license basically is your permit to exercise that privilege. It says that you have successfully completed training required to operate a motor vehicle of a certain type.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 10:29:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: ...the road system was not a naturally-ocurring phenomenon...it was built at a very high cost for the purpose of safe travel by the public.
View Quote
I'd have to disagree here Rik. The original roads came about from foot paths and animal trails. Then came horse & wagons. I believe when the automobile came along and had problems navigating the muddy dirt roads is when the outcry for better roads came along. Now in present day, or maybe the past 30-40 years or so, the Interstates could be put into this catagory of being created for safe travel, but we can dive into that military use thing again also.
View Quote
I am not sure how this is disagreeing with what I said???
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 10:34:01 AM EDT
Privelege
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top