It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 13
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
....hrm...

Methinks it might be wise to have a piece of blue tape on my trucks visor which reminds me...

"Never falsely admit to DRIVING when you're simply TRAVELING"
edit on 1-2-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
You can also do commerce while standing still.

I thin kif we can all find a way to stop doing commerce, then we will be immune to all of these legal dictionary terms.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

''Commercial activity'' is nonsense. Everybody, throughout the world, laughs at your citizens who are the most restricted people in the Western world, because you use some 300-year-old parchment as a way to live in the 21st century, and to restrict the development of modern-day citizens.



I guess this is your ultimate admission of defeat. Insult the entire nation at the same time, nice one.

Our Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

The Constitution does not grant rights. Rights naturally exist, the Constitution is a Social Contract governing the actions and setting limitations on the Government.

No matter how restricted you think Americans are, we are still the freest people on Earth. Evidence : 300million guns in private hands.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
....hrm...

Methinks it might be wise to have a piece of blue tape on my trucks visor which reminds me...

"Never falsely admit to DRIVING when you're simply TRAVELING"
edit on 1-2-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)


Yeah, but you'd also need to have the definitions of those terms somewhere so when the cops came up, you could show them whats what.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
You can also do commerce while standing still.

I thin kif we can all find a way to stop doing commerce, then we will be immune to all of these legal dictionary terms.


Exactly.

Now you see the "Loophole".

Our legal system is packed full of them.

If you use them correctly, you can get out of just about anything. Sad but true. And good too for you.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
....hrm...

Methinks it might be wise to have a piece of blue tape on my trucks visor which reminds me...

"Never falsely admit to DRIVING when you're simply TRAVELING"
edit on 1-2-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)


Yeah, but you'd also need to have the definitions of those terms somewhere so when the cops came up, you could show them whats what.


There are videos on youtube of people actually getting pulled over, pulling out a stack of legal documents, and getting off the hook 100% without a "drivers licence".

They have been on ATS a few times, I'll try to dig them up.

It gets really complicated so suffice to say it may take a few years to build your legal argument from top to bottom and not screw it up at one spot and get ruined over it.

Let's see if we can find some of those videos, and maybe links to lists of information we need specifically.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
On a side note... in the US states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina speeding is a misdemeanor CRIME. In Georgia traveling even one mile an hour over the limit is punishable by $1000 fine and up to 1 year in jail.

www.carinsurance.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   


Please watch the whole video. This is totally real.

There are many more where this came from. Also, check out various Freeman related videos.

This particular guy is really smart and has his act together.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is simple:


If requiring a licence to drive a car/fly a plane is unconstitutional and unlawful, then please provide evidence of somebody successfully being able to drive the roads on these grounds.

This is hardly a new idea or theory.


The US has 150m+ drivers, let's see you successfully arguing against the current procedure, based upon the laws that you are aware of.


Now... Are you going to put your money where your mouth is ?


assist!
Sullivan vs N Carolina
i believe i've found the case involving the subsequent video.

edit on 1-2-2011 by ahmonrarh because: (trying to embed the vid properly dangit!)
edit on 1-2-2011 by ahmonrarh because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''Commercial activity'' is nonsense. Everybody, throughout the world, laughs at your citizens who are the most restricted people in the Western world, because you use some 300-year-old parchment as a way to live in the 21st century, and it restricts the development of modern-day citizens.


I can't completely call this idiotic as many don't understand that the Constitution has nothing to do with the free activities of the people and everything to do with the limiting of political interest of government.

How does a document, that serves solely as a basis of government structure and limits of powers thereof restrict the development of free peoples? To answer my own question, it would because people don't understand that the 224 year old parchment has nothing to do with how we live, but rather how we govern ourselves.

So it seems the world doesn't understand and sadly, many Americans also.

Here is the understanding from one that helped draft the document. In Federalist Paper No 84, Alexander Hamilton writes, "But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."



Still, if you want to perpetually live in the late 18th/early 19th century, then why don't you all just become Amish ?


Do you have something against the Amish? That they choose to live the way they want? That is the power of a limiting document such as the Constitution. It protects the Amish from a government that may disagree with their choice on lifestyle.



Stop being intellectually dishonest, and selecting the parts of the US Constitution that you want to be applicable, while ignoring the other parts that you don't want to apply to you...


While this was directed to another poster, I ask....to what are they cherry picking from the Constitution and what are they ignoring?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ahmonrarh
 



Mate, I don't understand the point that you're arguing ?


Either, you have the ''right'' to drive a car, or you don't.

This is typical stuff from über-constitutionalists, and irrationalists, trying to defend the indefensible in the modern world... Good luck with that one.





edit on 1-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by ahmonrarh
 



Mate, I don't understand the point that you're arguing ?


Either, you have the ''right'' to drive a car, or you don't.

This is typical stuff from über-constitutionalists, and irrationalists, trying to defend the indefensible in the modern world... Good luck with that one.





edit on 1-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


No we don't have the right to "drive" a car. We have the right to "travel" while operating a motor vehicle. (at least that's the way I am understanding the wording)
edit on 1-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I guess this is your ultimate admission of defeat.


I was thinking the same, only the other way around ?

The American admission of defeat comes in a variety of flavours !

Oh yes, let's carpet bomb Afghanistan !



Originally posted by muzzleflash
Insult the entire nation at the same time, nice one.


Nice try, but I'd never intentionally insult the USA, as a country.

The US is a great country, and is the home of some really decent people.

I'm merely mocking the ridiculous beliefs of a minority contingent of the US, who are, in effect, idiots who want to take their country back 300 years !


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Our Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.


I'm sure that's very nice for you.

But while us Europeans mock and laugh about your antics, there is a very serious actuality in these discussions...

''America'' is the most restricted country in the Western world, and your citizens are restricted because they have a fanciful belief in some ''rights'' that were supposedly granted by a bunch of obnoxious, slave-owning, drunks, 320 year ago !

They aren't going to save you now !



Originally posted by muzzleflash
The Constitution does not grant rights. Rights naturally exist


Bollocks. Prove it.

Tell me how ''rights'' naturally exist ?



Originally posted by muzzleflash
No matter how restricted you think Americans are, we are still the freest people on Earth. Evidence : 300million guns in private hands.


Well, you're certainly not the freest in terms of logic ! That's for sure.

The knuckle-draggers argument: ''we're free, becoz we got dem guns''.



China, India and Indonesia all outpopulate your country, and countries such as Mexico will provide your country with a huge boost in your population over the next few years.


Most of the advanced European countries, such as my own, are doing just fine !

While Americans are wondering: ''where did it all go wrong ?''.


LOL.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Your reifications do not make your arguments rational or logical. Reification is a logical fallacy. You keep insisting on framing the Constitution as a document that has granted rights to people. Nothing can be further from the truth, and you can not point to any portion of the Constitution you keep insisting doesn't give people the right to drive to support your argument that this Constitution gives rights.

From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the language of the Constitution is clear, and that clarity is that it is a document intended to delineate powers granted government from the people, and limitations on those powers. The Bill of Rights in practically every Amendment is clear in its prohibitory nature, and it is not prohibiting the people from anything, it is prohibiting government.

Congress shall make no laws...shall not be infringed...No solider shall...shall not be violated and no Warrants shall...on and on and on, these Amendments make clear that they are instructing government what they cannot do in regards to rights of the people. Further, the 9th Amendment is painfully clear in its language that rights have not been granted by the government, but are retained by the people.

Even further, when it comes to the right to drive, this is not a matter for the Federal Constitution, it is a states matter, and it is far more appropriate to speak to the State Constitution, and again, you will discover that all States have a Section in their Declaration of Rights, or Bill of Rights that echo the 9th Amendment.

The pretense that this document cannot keep up with the changing times only reveals a profound ignorance of that document, of which you have shown in spades in this thread. There is no technology that becomes so fandangled that the enumerated rights, and those unenumerated rights of the people must be relinquished in order to keep up with the times. It is a tyrants argument. Whether you be an actual tyrant, or simply just a sycophant of tyranny, you can rely on as many silly little emoticons as you wish in a hope to make your irrational and illogical arguments sound better. Critical thinkers see through your gibber jabber.

A right need not be listed in order for it to be a right. No licensing scheme, nor any registration scheme is required in order to enforce genuine traffic laws. Genuine traffic laws are those laws that facilitate the right to drive, not impede it. A drivers license does nothing towards making a safer society, if it did there would not be so many deaths by automobile accidents. Licensing schemes are an aggregation of power by government officials, and all too often they become an excuse to dole out privileges that trump the rights of people. This is unacceptable under any circumstances for the rational and logical thinker. No rational mind would ever embrace tyranny, as they would understand the folly of such a reign, and could easily predict the direction that tyranny leads.

History has shown us time and time again that when the encroachments of tyranny become insufferable, the people revolt. It is easy to predict that this is the path of tyranny. It is a closed system, and all closed systems tend towards entropy. Open systems are what is needed. Licensing schemes is a closed system.

Rights are not malleable things granted by government. They are as much law as is gravity, the speed of light, and sound. All law is simple, true, universal and absolute. Unalienable rights are simple, true, universal, and absolute. The government granted "rights", or "civil rights" you advocate are "rights" that can be taken away, and such they are not law, merely legislative acts.

In the fight for freedom, there are no gray hats. There are white hats, and there are black hats. Wear your black hat proudly if you choose. Smirk and smugly dismiss those who passionately fight for freedom all you want, but make no mistakes about this, your fight has been passionate in this thread as well, and that passion has not been spent on the pursuit of freedom.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Ill bite again...maybe in hopes that you will engage the past two posts directed towards you from me.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm merely mocking the ridiculous beliefs of a minority contingent of the US, who are, in effect, idiots who want to take their country back 300 years!


Limiting the scope of government does not take our country back 300 years. Heck, we were not a country 300 years ago. I enjoy though that you are trying to make logical points while failing to get facts correct. It shows that your argument is purely emotional and you have a bone to pick with people that consider themselves to be free.

Because of the Constitution, the separation of powers and a federal system; we on a whole, may it be minority or majority have an equal voice. Sometimes the minority voice is strongest to check that of the majority.



''America'' is the most restricted country in the Western world, and your citizens are restricted because they have a fanciful belief in some ''rights'' that were supposedly granted by a bunch of obnoxious, slave-owning, drunks, 320 year ago!




Bollocks. Prove it.

Tell me how ''rights'' naturally exist ?


While to some degree you are correct but that is where the voices in favor of return of government adhering to its founding document that created it is important.

As far as the Constitution not granting rights, muzzle is correct.

We derive all our rights based upon three self-evident truths. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. From those truths, our rights arise, may it be from God or Nature. Recognizing that in order to be free, government must be limited and strictly held to certain and specific enumerated powers. The Constitution serves as a limiting document, not a grantor of liberties towards the people.

Because of the dangerous application that arises from a Bill of Rights, James Madison included the Ninth Amendment as means to further solidify and protect the natural rights held by individuals not specifically listed or mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

It is easy to prove that we have natural rights. We naturally have the right to protect ourselves; self-preservation. We naturally have the right to express our ideas. We naturally have the right move freely. We naturally have the right to decide how we want to be governed.

If you cannot see how rights are natural and not given by governments, than I guess you deserve to live under the rule of those that allow you to do such things that are natural.

Bah...stupid mouse....
Post Script:
I leave you with these words to ponder. Emphasis is mine.

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Yup! Anyone should be able to get in 1/2ton+ of metal & move it at speeds sufficient to kill other people. Makes perfect sense. Its your right, goddamnit! Under the constitootion!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sorry if I missed it ( I'm on my phone and it won't let me see the details of YouTube videos ) but what state did this encounter occur. I am actually shocked the officers just didn't arrest him on the spot.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yup! Anyone should be able to get in 1/2ton+ of metal & move it at speeds sufficient to kill other people.


Again, non-sequitur argument! I can move a bicycle at a sufficient speed to kill someone, should we be licensing that mode of transportation? Using such logic as the linchpin to require licensing to drive an automobile is ridiculous as it does not follow. Else we could just apply this to everything. I have the ability to kill someone with my bare hands, I suppose I should be licensed.

But then again, this coming from someone who follows up their argument with the below quote...Disparaging others and their opinions shows lack of critical thinking.

Makes perfect sense. Its your right, goddamnit! Under the constitootion!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yup! Anyone should be able to get in 1/2ton+ of metal & move it at speeds sufficient to kill other people.


Again, non-sequitur argument! I can move a bicycle at a sufficient speed to kill someone, should we be licensing that mode of transportation? Using such logic as the linchpin to require licensing to drive an automobile is ridiculous as it does not follow. Else we could just apply this to everything. I have the ability to kill someone with my bare hands, I suppose I should be licensed.

But then again, this coming from someone who follows up their argument with the below quote...Disparaging others and their opinions shows lack of critical thinking.

Makes perfect sense. Its your right, goddamnit! Under the constitootion!


It's literally possible to kill anyone with anything, so what are you suggesting?

That *nothing* should require a license because *everything* has fatal potential?

You don't have enough of a backbone to make a decision? Afraid to draw the line?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Not at all. My point being that to use the argument that because the operation of something has the potential to kill, therefor should require a license is a weak argument in favor of licensing.

My progression throughout this thread was to point out that the Constitution protects the right to travel, licensing is a revenue scheme, and licensing does not make the operation of a automobile safer; only the people operating under the prescribed letter of the law and regulations of the road can do that.

I have also pointed out that trying to get out of the current law is silly as we should follow the law. Of course, not blindly but the law itself is not unjust, rather a means of revenue. Until it is properly changed, it is our duty to operate within that law. I am in favor of removing licensing drivers however with a few exceptions in regards to commercial truck drivers.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join