Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/31/2006 6:05:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 6:32:28 AM EDT by SHIVAN]
Every passing day, I think I have seen it "all" as far as horrible drivers go. Then the next day I am amazed at the new levels of stupidity, inattention, and carelessness that the drivers in my area seem to attain.

I used to think that we had a decent driver's education program in this country, but apparently I am also mistaken in that regard.

I must have taken my driver's education course WAY too seriously.

Apparently it is far too easy to obtain a driver's license and the ability to legally drive on the roads today.

A few points that I noticed in the past couple days:

Why don't people understand what road signs MEAN? The difference between a yield sign and a stop sign/light?

Why don't people understand that signaling to turn, AS YOU ARE TURNING, doesn't do what it was intended to do?

Why do people think that it's appropriate to merge onto a highway at 35-40mph?

Why do people drive in the MIDDLE of a parking lot aisle, when cars are coming in the other direction?

Why do people have trouble with understanding who has the right-of-way on a GREEN arrow?

Why do people not understand that if I am turning right on GREEN, that they shouldn't attempt to turn left in front of me and expect me to yield to them?

Why don't people understand that parking your car in front of a NO PARKING OR STANDING ANYTIME SIGN just makes them look like a self-important moron who couldn't walk the extra 40' to the store from a real parking space?

In summation, the driver's qualification tests should be more difficult, and they should be required every time you renew your license.

It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:09:36 AM EDT
You think it's bad here? Try NJ!
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:10:18 AM EDT
Yesterday I just about rear ended someone who STOPPED on a right turn green arrow to look both ways.
Last week I was stopped on a on ramp on I581 for 10 minutes because someone in a mini-van was scared to enter the highway at full speed.

I think most of the accidents happen because some people drive too defensively.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:10:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FatMan:
You think it's bad here? Try NJ!



Not even close to Metro DC.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:12:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!




You had me till this crap came out of your mouth.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:24:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!




You had me till this crap came out of your mouth.



Please illustrate where it's enumerated as a right, anywhere. Or where we could be shown, as a society, to be violating human rights if driving were strictly a luxury instead of being taken for granted.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:24:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!




You had me till this crap came out of your mouth.


? lost me
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:36:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 6:44:10 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By twonami:
? lost me



Apparently, he believes it a right to drive.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:38:18 AM EDT
You have a right to go from point A to point B. You can pay for a taxi, buy an airline ticket, ride a bus or walk. You do not have a right to get behind a wheel or hop on to an airplane without being properly trained.

I am all for banning driving for people under 18 and older than 80.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:40:25 AM EDT
Driving is not a right.


If you can't read, speak and understand English -> no license.

Mandatory driving test every 4 years, every year once you hit 65.

Drive drunk -> no license.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:43:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:44:05 AM EDT
Funny how *most* people probably think that guns should be registered and owner's licensed because "guns are scary and can kill people" but driving (which kills more people than guns)and obtaining a drivers license should be a right and be easier to obtained.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:44:26 AM EDT
I'll take "the ability to drive" for $500, Alex.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:46:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Funny how *most* people probably think that guns should be registered and owner's licensed because "guns are scary and can kill people" but driving (which kills more people than guns)and obtaining a drivers license should be a right and be easier to obtained.



I don't think either. But that's just me.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:47:06 AM EDT
I'd like to see a graduated licensing system (especially w.r.t. motorcycle endorsements)
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:49:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 6:52:04 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By Paul:
If we wanted better drivers we would enforce the tens of thousands of laws we already have on the books. Just like if we wanted less crime we would enforce the tens of thousands of laws we already have on the books. For many reasons people will accept a certain level of poor drivers and criminals.



If we wanted better drivers we wouldn't chase the revenue generating infractions and forsake all others -- I agree with you.

In a discussion this weekend with several friends, not one of us has received a ticket for anything other than speeding or parking. 10 people over the age of 30, who have never been ticketed for anything other than speeding or parking.

Hmm...

Wonder why?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:01:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 7:06:43 AM EDT by danpass]

Originally Posted By FatMan:
You think it's bad here? Try NJ! Miami



I grew up in NY and learned to drive there (suburbs/NYC)

I went to school in Pittsburgh and drove there

I worked in and around Detroit and drove there

I worked in and around San Francisco and drove there


I never used my horn until coming to Miami.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:01:41 AM EDT
If it is true that driving is not a right, it is also true that wearing shoes is not a right. It is certain that the government decided to label driving a "privilege," and that many people have drunk deeply of that particular vat of koolaid.

The only purpose that I see served by licensing drivers is to collect fines and incarcerate the poor and incompetent, essentially at will.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:05:12 AM EDT
Where is the "Must be US Citizen/Legal immigrant " option?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:05:19 AM EDT
The anwser to all of your questions can be sumed up in four simple words,

Most
People
Are
Idiots.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:06:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
If it is true that driving is not a right, it is also true that wearing shoes is not a right. It is certain that the government decided to label driving a "privilege," and that many people have drunk deeply of that particular vat of koolaid.

The only purpose that I see served by licensing drivers is to collect fines and incarcerate the poor and incompetent, essentially at will.



+1 well said.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:08:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FatMan:
You think it's bad here? Try NJ!




Yeah, you think it's bad in NJ, try South Florida.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:11:27 AM EDT
There should be extensive training on safety around a semi. I drive semi and could go on all day about most idiots on the road.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:16:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 7:17:51 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
If it is true that driving is not a right, it is also true that wearing shoes is not a right. It is certain that the government decided to label driving a "privilege," and that many people have drunk deeply of that particular vat of koolaid.

The only purpose that I see served by licensing drivers is to collect fines and incarcerate the poor and incompetent, essentially at will.



Nice strawman you've stood up there...

As it were, I agree with you that the only reason we license drivers here is to collect fines.

I believe THAT is my point.

The "right" to drive an automobile should be burdened by the DEMONSTRATED ability to perform the duties of driving. The system in the US is a rubber stamp. We have pushed the work off on the enforcement branch of the government.

Just like a doctor or lawyer or engineer must demonstrate aptitude at their profession, so too should a driver be required to demonstrate aptitude in driving.

Or maybe it's a right to be a doctor, lawyer, and engineer and I should sue to be placed in that profession without demonstrated aptitude?? Hmm?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:17:11 AM EDT
I want people to go through the same hassle to get issued an initial and renewal DL as it is to get a Pistol Permit, CCW, FOID, FID in some juristictions.

I want a new driver to apply to the local CLEO for their "approval" and wait 7 months. I want restrictions on the DL to a limited set of circumstances. "Work Only" "Grocery Store Only".

If any driver is caught driving outside these restrictions, their car is forfeited to the state or local gov't.

If any driver wants to operate out of state, they need to get a DL issued in that state or try to find a non-res DL that is recognized in that state.

Once they are issued a DL, they can't drive on school property, park at the courthouse or leave it unattended, as they can be held liable in a criminal or civil court if it is stolen and injures another party.

14 day waiting period for any purchase of a motor vehicle. No private party sales of vehicles across state lines and any transfer of a "sports car" must be done at a licensed dealer in the purchaser's home state.

Then, let them complain about lax guns laws.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:22:04 AM EDT
It's not so much the initial testing, it's the re-qualification each renewal that should happen. Also, you should have degrees of licenses... kind of like the CDL's. Basic driving you can't go on Hwy. or interstates - this takes an advanced license. Want to drive in another state? Have to have passed some basic test to do that as well. This should be done each time you renew, not just mail in the money and get your new expiration sticker

Be a PITA but might help with those crappy drivers on the roads and maybe my insurance would go down
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:24:38 AM EDT
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:28:48 AM EDT
Permit at 15 or 16, 4 years of driving practice, 2 hour practical exam, 300 or question test, no driving with anyone else under 21 in the car unless it's for school or they are family. I've scraped WAY TO MANY KIDS out of cars that were no where near mature enough to be driving. Can you tell?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:30:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



Maybe when we can go back to those days we can go back to the days of driving being STRICTLY an item of LUXURY.

Where the only cars were available for 1 year's salary, or higher. Where roads that existed, existed because the people directly paid for them to exist.

Gone would be the days of the illegal alien coming to DC and getting a Toyota Corolla for $250 and driving like a complete retard.

Also gone would be the days where you could live in the backwoods or suburbs and drive into town for work. Work had better be within distance you could cycle or walk.

Yeah, the good old days.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:31:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:33:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
There should be extensive training on safety around a semi. I drive semi and could go on all day about most idiots on the road.



I am with ya here! I am an Owner Operator , Step Deck.

I could tell you people some horror stories of "Youre gonna get out of my way big truck, and I am gonna make ya!!!"

80,000 lbs VS. 2500lbs.


there are many different reasons people drive the way they do. It is NOT geographically specific.
One thing in common all over the country: "FU I am king and indestructable while I drive my Car!!"

Its a shame people are so f-ing ingnorant.
It is true that more people die due to autos than guns. Shoot a person, it's a long dramatic nightmare.
Kill a person with a car...... easy to get out of
Maybe we should arm everyone and strip their DL's???
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:37:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Permit at 15 or 16, 4 years of driving practice, 2 hour practical exam, 300 or question test, no driving with anyone else under 21 in the car unless it's for school or they are family. I've scraped WAY TO MANY KIDS out of cars that were no where near mature enough to be driving. Can you tell?



That's known as Germany (and I am all for that setup). Plus, your license is for life.

Lower death toll per 100,000 miles driven than the U.S.

But according to libturds, speed kills. They don't let facts get in the way of their hot-air rhetoric
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:39:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Permit at 15 or 16, 4 years of driving practice, 2 hour practical exam, 300 or question test, no driving with anyone else under 21 in the car unless it's for school or they are family. I've scraped WAY TO MANY KIDS out of cars that were no where near mature enough to be driving. Can you tell?



That's known as Germany (and I am all for that setup). Plus, your license is for life.



...and apparently the German teens take the testing and driving seriously.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:42:06 AM EDT
I'm all for the German model. Most kids are frickin clueless behind the wheel.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:42:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"



There are plenty of laws concerning the use of guns. You can't take them into a bar (in some places) you can't point it at someone without due cause, there are very strict legal provisions for when you can and cannot kill someone. There are places/times/methods that you can use to hunt. The point is that people should be allowed to drive or carry a gun with the assumption that they will do so responsibly, this is America. If someone is found to be irresponsible after the fact, then I can see losing your "rights." We do admit that there is no unlimited right. While every member of this site would agree that there is a "right to bear arms" this right can be lost under certain circumstance (ie if you get sent to prison).

We always argue that licensing gun owners will do nothing because criminals won't follow these laws, why would it be any different with automobiles?

And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:46:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"



There are plenty of laws concerning the use of guns. You can't take them into a bar (in some places) you can't point it at someone without due cause, there are very strict legal provisions for when you can and cannot kill someone. There are places/times/methods that you can use to hunt. The point is that people should be allowed to drive or carry a gun with the assumption that they will do so responsibly, this is America. If someone is found to be irresponsible after the fact, then I can see losing your "rights." We do admit that there is no unlimited right. While every member of this site would agree that there is a "right to bear arms" this right can be lost under certain circumstance (ie if you get sent to prison).

We always argue that licensing gun owners will do nothing because criminals won't follow these laws, why would it be any different with automobiles?

And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.

I guess I didn't make my point very well. 90% of the gun laws ARE USELESS. The only laws regarding firearms should be you can't use a gun or other weapon to deny someone else their liberty.

You hand a 17 year old kid the keys to the family car and tell him to go 15 miles to the grocery store without any knowlege of traffic laws and see how it ends.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:53:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.





Then we should do away with traffic signals and signs then too. Do not entertain the thought of going back in time with today's environment, and expecting it to "work out".

I don't know what type of population surrounds you where you live, but not all of America is simple, low impact and low speed.

There are 600,000-800,000 people just in my county, with equal that number in 4 of the counties around me. I offer that the current rubber stamping of "the ability to drive" is untenable.

Let it be known, that if they suddenly required a comprehensive driving test and school in order to get an operator's license for a regular automobile, I would be one of the first in line.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:53:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!




You had me till this crap came out of your mouth.



Please illustrate where it's enumerated as a right, anywhere. Or where we could be shown, as a society, to be violating human rights if driving were strictly a luxury instead of being taken for granted.




Shivan I know you personally and respect your RIGHT to an opinion, I hope you'll respect my RIGHT to an opinion.

I'm not going to get into an argument/pissing match with someone who clearly has superior internet debating skills than I do. I believe what I believe for reasons good enough for me to justify why I think that way to myself, I don't feel the need to justify it to you.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:54:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"



There are plenty of laws concerning the use of guns. You can't take them into a bar (in some places) you can't point it at someone without due cause, there are very strict legal provisions for when you can and cannot kill someone. There are places/times/methods that you can use to hunt. The point is that people should be allowed to drive or carry a gun with the assumption that they will do so responsibly, this is America. If someone is found to be irresponsible after the fact, then I can see losing your "rights." We do admit that there is no unlimited right. While every member of this site would agree that there is a "right to bear arms" this right can be lost under certain circumstance (ie if you get sent to prison).

We always argue that licensing gun owners will do nothing because criminals won't follow these laws, why would it be any different with automobiles?

And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.

I guess I didn't make my point very well. 90% of the gun laws ARE USELESS. The only laws regarding firearms should be you can't use a gun or other weapon to deny someone else their liberty.

You hand a 17 year old kid the keys to the family car and tell him to go 15 miles to the grocery store without any knowlege of traffic laws and see how it ends.



you hand that same 17 year old a hunting rifle and tell him to get you a buck, with no understanding of gun laws or safety, see how it ends.

The point is that we need parents to fucking do there job. I was no safer a driver with or without my driver's license. It's just a piece of paper, I was a safe driver because my dad taught me now.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:56:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"



There are plenty of laws concerning the use of guns. You can't take them into a bar (in some places) you can't point it at someone without due cause, there are very strict legal provisions for when you can and cannot kill someone. There are places/times/methods that you can use to hunt. The point is that people should be allowed to drive or carry a gun with the assumption that they will do so responsibly, this is America. If someone is found to be irresponsible after the fact, then I can see losing your "rights." We do admit that there is no unlimited right. While every member of this site would agree that there is a "right to bear arms" this right can be lost under certain circumstance (ie if you get sent to prison).

We always argue that licensing gun owners will do nothing because criminals won't follow these laws, why would it be any different with automobiles?

And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.

I guess I didn't make my point very well. 90% of the gun laws ARE USELESS. The only laws regarding firearms should be you can't use a gun or other weapon to deny someone else their liberty.

You hand a 17 year old kid the keys to the family car and tell him to go 15 miles to the grocery store without any knowlege of traffic laws and see how it ends.



you hand that same 17 year old a hunting rifle and tell him to get you a buck, with no understanding of gun laws or safety, see how it ends.

The point is that we need parents to fucking do there job. I was no safer a driver with or without my driver's license. It's just a piece of paper, I was a safe driver because my dad taught me now.

You are talking about hunting laws, not firearms ownership laws. True parents aren't doing enough but the parents are just as lousy drivers as the children. It is the blind leading the blind.
There are more aspects of driving than there are with gun ownership.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:57:32 AM EDT
Do you know what I needed in order to drive in Scotland? My state issued driver's license, from Virginia?

I had never driven in Europe before, nor driven a right hand drive on the left hand side. Nor did I know what many of their signs meant.

Let's just say that the first 80 miles were an "adventure".

Since I was able to function and get around without killing myself and my wife. I figure that I don't need to know what the signs meant. So, to this day, I STILL haven't looked them up.

I wonder how many "imports" to this country do the same when they get HERE???

Yet I still wonder why people SHOULDN'T be REQUIRED to know what a Yield sign means...

I guess I have it all wrong. Oh well.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:00:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
Shivan I know you personally and respect your RIGHT to an opinion, I hope you'll respect my RIGHT to an opinion.

I'm not going to get into an argument/pissing match with someone who clearly has superior internet debating skills than I do. I believe what I believe for reasons good enough for me to justify why I think that way to myself, I don't feel the need to justify it to you.



It's fine to disagree, I just thought that you had something handy that would help me understand a "right" vs. a "priviledge".

If you believe it, that's fine.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:00:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
It's a PRIVILEDGE, not a right!




You had me till this crap came out of your mouth.



I'm not saying what this really means but it seems driving is kind of a hybrid. Still it's more a right to me than a privilege. I would say that having a CC permit in Los Angeles or San Francisco is a privilege and hardly comparable to having a driver's license, which is given fraudulently with a wink and a nod to any biped.

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:01:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
I don't think you should need a license for a gun...and I certainly don't think you should need a license to drive a car. If only we could go back to the good old days before everyone was brainwashed with nanny state BS...



The problem with that primis is that with gun laws the only thing you need to know is don't murder someone, don't steal property from someone and don't restrict someone's liberty. Concepts that aren't to hard to understand. However, traffic laws are much more complex. Road signs, parking techniques, right-of-way laws need to be clearly understood instead of "trail by error"



There are plenty of laws concerning the use of guns. You can't take them into a bar (in some places) you can't point it at someone without due cause, there are very strict legal provisions for when you can and cannot kill someone. There are places/times/methods that you can use to hunt. The point is that people should be allowed to drive or carry a gun with the assumption that they will do so responsibly, this is America. If someone is found to be irresponsible after the fact, then I can see losing your "rights." We do admit that there is no unlimited right. While every member of this site would agree that there is a "right to bear arms" this right can be lost under certain circumstance (ie if you get sent to prison).

We always argue that licensing gun owners will do nothing because criminals won't follow these laws, why would it be any different with automobiles?

And I would like it to go back to the "good old days." Back when a kid could walk around town with a .22 and no one would say shit. Back when a bunch of 14 year olds could drive around in a model T and no one said shit. Sure, there were more traffic deaths back then, but there were also more accidental gun deaths too. There is a price for freedom.

I guess I didn't make my point very well. 90% of the gun laws ARE USELESS. The only laws regarding firearms should be you can't use a gun or other weapon to deny someone else their liberty.

You hand a 17 year old kid the keys to the family car and tell him to go 15 miles to the grocery store without any knowlege of traffic laws and see how it ends.



you hand that same 17 year old a hunting rifle and tell him to get you a buck, with no understanding of gun laws or safety, see how it ends.

The point is that we need parents to fucking do there job. I was no safer a driver with or without my driver's license. It's just a piece of paper, I was a safe driver because my dad taught me now.

You are talking about hunting laws, not firearms ownership laws. True parents aren't doing enough but the parents are just as lousy drivers as the children. It is the blind leading the blind.
There are more aspects of driving than there are with gun ownership.



It is the blind leading the blind. Most gun owners don't know how to handle guns safely (in most cases they still manage not to kill someone). We could all be safer if everyone had to take gun safety classes to get a gun permit, right? What I'm saying is that the ends don't justify the means.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:07:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 8:09:03 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
I'm not saying what this really means but it seems driving is kind of a hybrid. Still it's more a right to me than a privilege. I would say that having a CC permit in Los Angeles or San Francisco is a privilege and hardly comparable to having a driver's license, which is given fraudulently with a wink and a nod to any biped.

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.



Method of travel is guaranteed as a right? Interesting favorable interpretation.

If you can not demonstrate the ability to safely navigate the highways, via a personally owned and operated autombile, then you should take a bus, train, cab, limo, or hitch a ride with someone who CAN demonstrate the ability to drive safely and properly.

In no way, is the demonstrated ability to operate an automobile safely and properly, an infringement on your right to travel from location to location.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:13:24 AM EDT
You only need a license to drive on public roads, most of which are paid for and maintained by tax dollars.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:31:58 AM EDT
A state driver license means nothing anymore. They are either forged or issued by the DMV, and everyone knows that DMV = Retard.
All these training sessions and waiting periods that are required or proposed will not overcome the fact that people driving cars are only human and humans make mistakes. Sociologist and libtards will tell you that "if you just pass this group of laws, and make the People jump through these hoops the People will behave in this other perfect way". We all know that aint gonna happen with anything, guns and cars included.
The only way to make driving safe for your family is to drive the biggest, heaviest vehicle on the road as fast as possible.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:32:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 8:32:50 AM EDT by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
In no way, is the demonstrated ability to operate an automobile safely and properly, an infringement on your right to travel from location to location.



The infringement is really that the license is defacto National ID, unlike your crummy little fishing license. They don't require a license to vote but that IS a right. I'm just saying that none of it makes very much sense.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:35:42 AM EDT
I took a 20 question quiz and drove around the block to get my license
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:35:53 AM EDT
You should be required to survive a high speed obstacle course.

If you can do it while talking on a cell phone without a seat belt at .08 BAC and 20 mph above the required speed, then you receive the appropriate endorsements.

Re-qualifications required every 5 years.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:36:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
A state driver license means nothing anymore. They are either forged or issued by the DMV, and everyone knows that DMV = Retard.
All these training sessions and waiting periods that are required or proposed will not overcome the fact that people driving cars are only human and humans make mistakes. Sociologist and libtards will tell you that "if you just pass this group of laws, and make the People jump through these hoops the People will behave in this other perfect way". We all know that aint gonna happen with anything, guns and cars included.
The only way to make driving safe for your family is to drive the biggest, heaviest vehicle on the road as fast as possible.



Agreed that humans make mistakes. However, my contention is that many people who are driving on the roads today have no clue as to what they are doing, what the signs mean, what "Right-of-way" means, etc.

They aren't making "mistakes". They don't know how to drive.

There is a subtle difference.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top