CAR PHONE BAN GOES TOO FAR

boblonsberry.com | 01/14/09 | Bob Lonsberry

[CSM]

“it precludes the federal government from removing or in any significant way abridging that inherent right.”

I agree, which is precisely why I do not consider it within the state’s authority to grant rights.

[Sudetenland]

Yet they do. They require you to have a license etc. etc. If they can do all of the things that I have previously listed, how is banning the use of cell phones any different? In every case, they are placing constraints on the “right” to drive.

[CSM]

yes they do. That is why it is prudent to KYPD. I honestly believe that we are reaching a tipping point.

[elkfersupper]

Given that definition, virtually all of our rights could be considered privileges.

Given all of that, it is somewhat important that nobody - including you - do or say anything to perpetuate that notion.

Otherwise, there will have to be another revolutionary war.

[elkfersupper]

how does one reconcile the concept of driving being a "right" when that right is so tightly constrained by the state?

We have been lazy in defending our rights.

[elkfersupper]

Because some of us had a friend killed by a drunk driver while said friend was sitting ON HIS COUCH in his LIVING ROOM?

Define "drunk".

[elkfersupper]

Voting used to be reserved for white adult male land owners. Legally.

An excellent idea, by the way, and one that desperately needs to be revisited.

[elkfersupper]

Driving is clearly a right and individuals have no right to vote for the person seeking the office of President of the U.S.

Visit your dictionary, history and law books, little one.

[eXe]

Yup and I agree 100%

I dont need more nanny laws. If my wife calls me while I am driving I can assure everyone that its a 20 second call and I hang up, I cant STAND talking on the phone while driving myself.

I will not be in favor of people like myself getting a ticket because of those that ABUSE cell phones.

Also as a ham radio and ARES (Amateur radio emergency services) operator, i wonder too how long it will be before they ban ham radios in vehicles.

[elkfersupper]

You’ve got some serious problems. There are courses to help adults improve reading comprehension.

You have some serious problems. There are courses to help adults improve their grammar.

[elkfersupper]

A "crash" has a cause that must be legislated against.

An "accident" is just that.

[Sudetenland]

Driving is not "clearly a right." It is less clearly a right than is the right to vote, to speak, to own a gun, or to own property.

I suggest that you might try reading a few history, law, and constitutional law books and treatises...you might begin with the reference to which I linked earlier.

If driving is a right, then it is one of the most restricted and constrained "rights" we have. You must pass a test to drive, you don't have to pass a test to vote. You have to have a license to drive, you don't have to have a license to vote, merely a registration and in some cases not even that. I think maybe you need to bone up on the two definitions (right and privilege) and then get back to me...that is if you can read.

The reference to which you referred me offers some compelling arguments, but I know of no other "right" held inherently by the people which must be paid for, licensed, tested-both knowledge and skills, inspected and can only be exercised if you can financial responsibility. You drive at the sufference of the state and they can revoke that privilege if they deem you unfit, physically, mentally, or fiscally.

Show me another "right" that is so tightly constrained and I will show you a privilege.

[DLfromthedesert]

Helps to keep my son awake while driving long distances. He’s called me while on the road.

[elkfersupper]

If driving is a right, then it is one of the most restricted and constrained "rights" we have.

That is a huge problem.

You must pass a test to drive, you don't have to pass a test to vote.

A tragedy and a travesty on both counts.

....then get back to me...that is if you can read.

We both can read, but only one of us can understand.

[Sudetenland]

"individuals have no right to vote for the person seeking the office of President of the U.S."

You might want to begin your education with the 19th Amendment. It is short enough that even someone like you might be able to read it.

[elkfersupper]

You want to be a subject, rather than a citizen.

Move to a monarchy. They are mostly located in Europe.

[elkfersupper]

You might want to begin your education with the 19th Amendment. It is short enough that even someone like you might be able to read it.

The Electoral College elects the President, dumbass.

[Sudetenland]

Huh...no answer eh? I thought not. Talk about a strawman..."You want to be a subject, rather than a citizen." Never said it; never implied it.

Bluster and BS won't take you very far.

[Sudetenland]

I'm sorry, I made the gross mistake of assuming you were an adult interested in an exchange of views, but I see that you are just a little child playing gotcha and calling names.

Yes we elect the electors not the actual president, but in common parlance and discussion the one is assumed to be the same as the other...and in history it has proven to be so.

Since you seem incapable of holding a rational discussion and have been reduced to insults and childish games, I dismiss you now...

[elkfersupper]

I dismiss you now...

I cannot be dismissed, for I am a proud, patriotic and knowledgeable citizen interested in not only my liberty, but yours as well.

Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean that I am not interested in preserving it for you.