Serfs: About Your Privilige, Driving

[Polybius]

Why does not your analysis apply to firearms, as well?

Because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

[telos]

SCROTUS can be tyrannical, and wrong; especially when staffed by political hacks and charlatans. It all works together, but THE PEOPLE are at the top of the pyramid, not the bottom. It is an awesome responsibility, but we are up to it; disingenuous people have misinterpreted the BOR to be defining and limiting, when, in fact, it is merely emblematic and suggestive--- Ejusdem Generis.

[telos]

I think you are wrong there; it is guaranteed only by the collective conscience. If the Constitution does not limit Government, but instead limits the People, it has been inverted, subverted and perverted. You better start banging your drum, because it is the only thing you have left.

[wimpycat]

SCROTUS can be tyrannical, and wrong; especially when staffed by political hacks and charlatans.

The Supreme Court has been wrong on many occasions; judicial activism at all levels of the system can be construed as tyrannical in that it upsets the balance of powers by usurping the power of Congress to make laws. But this is the system that the U.S. Constitution that we all know and love has allowed. If you don't agree with a law, then the court system is one place to challenge that law. Your state legislature or Congress is another.

Once again, everybody taking on the role as private interpreter of what is legal and what isn't is the beginning of anarchy. If you think tyranny doesn't recognize your God-given rights, just wait until everyone starts interpreting the laws in their own way and Anarchy takes over. Anarchy doesn't recognize anyone's rights. Just look at any WTO protester. Anarchists don't give a sh** about your rights.

[telos]

I think you are wrong. I think the Clintons and Janet Reno would pat you on the head for your response. Making a lot of noise is very healthy; have respect for the sovereign dignity of your fellow citizens, the political priesthood may be sanctimonious, but it is in no sense sacred.

[Polybius]

"The State is setting rules on an activity where you can easily kill or maim other law abiding citizens such as myself, my wife and my two kids."

Ok so you don't like people owning a gun without a license either. You like "gun control" laws.

Are you implyimg that responsible gun ownership "can easily kill other law abiding citizens"?

If I live in a suburb with eight houses to every city block and I decide to target practive in my back yard with a backstop consisting of a styrofoam cooler, does the State have a right to regulate such activity or is it protected by the Second Amendment?

If the State of Washington checks my eyesight during my driver's licenses renewal and discovers that I have cataracts that result in my having 20/800 vision, does the State of Washington have a right to prevent me from endagering other citizens of Washington State by suspending my driver's license?

Ok then why is hitchhiking illegal in may states?

I didn't say "hitchiking". I said "hitch a ride" as in "Hey Fred, I'm stinking drunk tonight. Can I hitch a ride home with you tonight".

"An untrained driver is very likely to kill or maim other citizens once he gets behind the wheel of an automobile that can travel at 85 MPH."

Even a trained driver can do that!

A trained driver can do that. An untrained driver is very likely to do that. Big difference. Again, as in the case of target shooting in the suburbs without a backstop, it comes down to exercising reasonable care.

Sure it start with cars and then your guns and then every other piece of you live.

Again, reasonable care. You can also say, "Sure, first they say that you can not target practice in your back yard just because you live in a suburb and then they will come and consfiscate your guns".

[JudyB1938]

I know that. I was kidding!

[SelfGov]

Are you *sure* you understand what is defined by the term "operate a motor vehicle"? (ref your #25)

I only skimmed the article, but also noticed in #23 the frivolous argument appears to hinge heavily on this sort of terminology. Another doofus who didn't understand the proper lingo gets nailed, and the court-jive convinces the rest of the natives to be submissive.

[StriperSniper]

We'll learn that MI soon 'nuf!;-)

[PatrioticAmerican]

You always have the right to travel, but where does the constitution state that the government has the responsibility to see to it that you have the most advanced means to do it with?

[telos]

"where does the constitution state that the government has the responsibility to see to it that you have the most advanced means to do it with?"

So then, constitutionally, you have the right to carry a colonial musket?

[TooBusy]

What nobody has questioned here is that being liscensed automatically makes you more skilled. Driving is the perfect example. The vast majority of drivers are liscensed yet are frequently the cause of accidents or are guilty of traffic violations.

Anothere one. My wife is a veterinary technician who can sew flesh and skin better than any doctor she has ever worked with, and most MDs that I have seen. According to PA law the only time she can touch a needle is to clean it or hand it to a doctor.

[Polybius]

You're in Washington 'eh? In Washington you do not require any training to get a driving license unless the person is under 18 years of age. First you have to pass a computized test of which you can cram for and then brain dump afterwards. Then you take a short driven test to see if you can do the basics.

I purpose that we have a safety class requirement. Instead of issuing a license we have people take a safety class once every 4 (or is it 5) years. We could then issue a safety cerification which we could then require people to have to operate motor vehicles. It then would not violate our right to travel and it would still restrict those who can legally drive in our state. That would be exceptable.

I hold a Washington State driver's license and it's legal for me to us for about 6 months after the experation date. (One of the perks of being in the military.)

I moved to Washington State after I completed my active duty in the Navy. I did a tour of duty here and I liked the state enough to settle here.

So, after driving for 19 years with a perfect driving record, I took the Washington State license driving test. The examiner took me all over the expressway and into suburbs. Turn right at this intersection. Turn left at this intersection. After getting back to the station, that S.O.B. told me that I had flunked the exam because did not see a 20 MPH speed limit sign in a suburban neighborhood!

Much humbled, I had to return the following week for a second driving exam. Twelve years later, I still have a perfect driving record except for that failure in my Washington State test that I considered passed before I ever took it. :-)

[PatrioticAmerican]

"So then, constitutionally, you have the right to carry a colonial musket?"

Huh? You are equating rights and technology. The argument was rights and the government's responsibility to provide for you.

[Badray]

"Driving without a license is, in and of itself, lawless."

Sorry to pick on you, but it just seems like a convenient place to jump in. Let's assume that I take a driver's ed course, get months and months of practice without tickets or accidents, take the test and pass it. All okay so far? Then when it's time to renew, I decide not to pay the fee, and since in all my time behind the wheel, I have been a good and safe driver with no tickets or accidents - I just don't have the current receipt for paying to travel on the roads in my state - why are you or others like you assuming that I am an unsafe driver? My record is good, just no paperwork. In fact, my insurance carrier is still covering me, because they have no reason not to, because I'm a good driver with no claims.

So, with the above scenario, is the issue safety or money? Just because a person does not have a current receipt [you call it a license], does that really mean they are unsafe?

[truth_eagle]

"Operate a motor vehicle"

Another doofus who didn't understand the proper lingo gets nailed

What do you call it? - "Driving da kar"