Skip to comments.
How far would you go to stand up for what you believe in?
The Agitator ^
| 011212
| The Agitator
Posted on 12/12/2001 4:38:03 PM PST by agitator
This week's guest on The Agitator Hour, heard Wednesdays at 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific will be Brad Barnhill.
How far would you go to stand up for what you believe in? Brad Barnhill has spent a lot of time and effort standing up for what he believes in. He believes that he shouldn't be required to have a driver's license or a license to carry a gun. He doesn't disregard the lawful authority of government, he just wants them to tell him by what authority they're acting. So far, he's 9 and 0 in the courts. He was recently arrested in Maryland for no registration on his car and illegal possession of two loaded pistols and he'll be discussing that case. Whether or not you agree with his positions, his interactions with the courts and government officials make interesting listening.
Guest: |
Mr. Brad Barnhill |
Date: |
Dec. 12, 2001 |
Showtime: |
9pm EST / 6pm PST |
Where: |
The Agitator Hour - Click here to Listen Live at 9pm |
To hear previous shows from the archives, CLICK HERE
To automatically receive programming announcements for The Agitator Hour, you can now subscribe to The Agitator Hour Mailing List by clicking here.
TOPICS: Announcements; Breaking News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
1
posted on
12/12/2001 4:38:03 PM PST
by
agitator
To: agitator
why is this 'breaking news'?
2
posted on
12/12/2001 4:46:52 PM PST
by
steveo
To: agitator
Whether or not you agree with his positions, his interactions with the courts and government officials make interesting listening. Not necessarily.
3
posted on
12/12/2001 4:48:15 PM PST
by
Silly
To: agitator
I believe I would go as far as the corner Winn Dixie to get some cheese, if there were no moose around at the time.
To: agitator
I would go far enough to assure that I never end a sentence with a preposition.
To: agitator
Hmmm...he's right about the gun.
He is morally right about the car, but technically wrong.
Government has no moral authority (or good reason) to own roads. They should be owned by private concerns. If that was the case, he'd have no reason to have a license issued by the government.
Unfortunately, the roads are taxpayer created things. I dislike it, but the fact remains.
To: DAnconia55
Basically true. Feds build roads. They set the rules. You could build a autobahn on your private property and race all day without your license.
7
posted on
12/12/2001 5:02:12 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
To: follow your bliss
picky picky picky
8
posted on
12/12/2001 5:05:26 PM PST
by
Ditter
To: Bogey78O
The FEDS did not build the roads. Our taxpayer dollars built the roads, therefore they are owned by the citizens, not the state!! But bow down and lick the boots of the ones you serve, that should be serving you. Don't feel too bad. I have a driver's license as well, but recognize it for what it is, a capitulation to tyranny.
To: Justanumba
'The FEDS did not build the roads. Our taxpayer dollars built the roads, therefore they are owned by the citizens, not the state!!'
Oh get off the soapbox. Technically we own the gov't too because we fund it. Of course It's built with taxpayer dollars. That's a no-brainer. But we authorize the taxation and we authorize the people who make the rules via popular represtation AKA REPUBLIC
10
posted on
12/12/2001 5:17:28 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
To: agitator
If only more people thought like this.
The rest are sheeple.
11
posted on
12/12/2001 5:19:00 PM PST
by
unixfox
To: Bogey78O
I believe there were quite a few rulings in the 20's that a drivers license could only be issued for "commercial purposes" otherwise it interfered with the constitutional right to travel. If this is true, as I have been told, then only commercial drivers licenses are required.
To: Bogey78O
XVII. downhill since.
To: Bogey78O
So, if the people that you vote for to represent you go ahead and vote in laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and you continue to follow them, then is that not a capitulation to tyranny? Your republic is only a republic if you can keep it. It will only remain lawful with a vigilent populace, which unfortunately, I'm afraid we do not have. I always vote for the candidates who promise tax cuts and yet taxes continue going up. Obviously two wolfs and a sheep voting as to what will be had for dinner.
In case you hadn't noticed, all of Free Republic is a soap box. Don't knock it...:-) In fact, glad to see you up on the podium, ranting away. LET FREE SPEECH RING!
To: Justanumba
'So, if the people that you vote for to represent you go ahead and vote in laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and you continue to follow them, then is that not a capitulation to tyranny?'
Well if you could show it to be unconstitutional then by all means proceed.
I'd rather argue over the constitutionality of requiring a DL than whether or not the gov't has a right to send people to prison. 8-)
15
posted on
12/12/2001 5:28:43 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
To: follow your bliss
Depends on what your definition of the word in is.
To: Bogey78O
If you have a right to liberty, and being at liberty is the right to travel and the roads are public, then having to have a license to travel the public roads is an impediment to your liberty, since you have to answer to the state. There are many court cases that have supported this notion, but you will have to find someone else to cite them.
Personally, I think that this is a lost cause, because unless the love of liberty is greater in the hearts of the people than the love of security, then you will lose liberty. I think right now that the people love security more. They would rather have the state test and license everyone than take the terrible "risk" that someone will kill them on the road because they didn't have the State's almighty permission to be there. The truth is, idiots can pass the test, get a license and still kill you. The truth is people without licenses still drive and could be more skilled than you at handling a vehicle. Everytime that you think you need the state to do something for you, think again.
The Constitution was put in place to limit the authority of the State to necessary defense and the Post Office and such. Too bad no one follows it anymore.
To: follow your bliss
I would go far enough to assure that I never end a sentence with a preposition. What a silly thing to worry about.
18
posted on
12/12/2001 5:45:27 PM PST
by
Exigence
To: Bogey78O
Technically we own the gov't too because we fund itWRONG !!! We own the government because, "We the People" own the government. "We the People" are the government. If citizens really understood this, we wouldn't have such a mess on our hands.
19
posted on
12/12/2001 5:48:51 PM PST
by
GingisK
To: Justanumba
The truth is, idiots can pass the test, get a license and still kill you. The truth is people without licenses still drive and could be more skilled than you at handling a vehicle. Everytime that you think you need the state to do something for you, think again. The Constitution was put in place to limit the authority of the State to necessary defense and the Post Office and such. Too bad no one follows it anymore.
The people without a license have to drive more carefully.
I have a lot more to say.
I have to go to sleep.
Love y'all.
20
posted on
12/12/2001 5:54:29 PM PST
by
carenot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson