Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

Reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Actually, they are rolling in their graves. Almost 300 years later, and we have to ask permission from the government if we want to travel from Boston to Philly.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Beat me to it as I was searching for my post

Now all we need is the specific law on driver's licenses that this is about

reply to post by Human_Alien


I understand the proposition.

I also understand that cars take time to learn to operate and it would be a horrible idea to let any one just drive a car without proving they can blend with the rest of traffic and that they are capable of controlling their vehicle.

I've had a few experience where experience and ability to control the card made the difference between a dead (or seriously injured) and a live person.

Originally posted by snowspirit


That's what would concern me too. The license proves you've passed a test saying you know how to drive, and know what the rules of the road are. I've seen men from India trying to teach their wives how to drive on the Wrong side of the road.
I've also taught friends how to drive, and a couple of them, I told them not to ever get in the driver's seat again. :shk:

Then how come I have to renew what I already know every few years?

I agree, learning to drive might be a good idea for some (although it's pretty fundamental once you practice in a parking lot a few times) so how about we all get a free report card instead?

Not only will it provide proof we learned how to start the ignition and mastered the art of buckling up that seat belt....it can double as a form of ID that so many of you think is crucial (not realizing once you get RFID'd......they will not only know who you are but what you ate for dinner)

So keep giving up your rights people. You're getting exactly what you deserve!

reply to post by Human_Alien


Whatever they have in mind with this---it is either a TRICK or just some kind of temporary distraction to get folks divided again and resentful toward one another. I certainly do not trust this have having any good intentions. No matter how "good" it may sound, nor how liberal, there will be some subtle hidden agenda. There's always a catch. Haven't you learned that yet?

Originally posted by dizziedame
reply to post by whaaa

 

No you didn't just say Stupid Cracker.

That was a very rude comment and racist to boot.

Sounds like something a damn Yankee would say.

I thought better of you.

I calls em like I see em. This political correctness has gotten very tiresome and lame.
On ATS I have been called a "raghead lover" "commi" "fartblossem" "tulipwalker" "pinko" "homosexual" "unpatriotic" "spook" "pencil necked geek" my favorite "People like you"
and now a "damn Yankee"
Those are just the names ive been called on the boards. It's much more colorful in U2Us


Bring it, I can take it!

Topic....Rep. Bobby Franklin is just posturing for his conservative base and knows full well Georgia will keep DL.s
Let's see him put his money where his mouth is and tear up his license and drive around. What a poser.

reply to post by Human_Alien



I don't look at it as giving up a right.

I look at it as 'I know how to drive because I took the time to learn and did so until I was put to high standards when tested' and that "I don't want to be on the road with a 14 year old kid that his parents gave him the keys to the car for the first time in his life and told him to go get something at the store."

If you believe a license is just a revenue stream you are incorrect. While the purpose of the license is to signify the right to operate a specified classification of motor vehicle, the license serves more than that purpose; specifically identification.

If you were not required to get a drivers license you would be required to obtain some sort of non-drivers identification, not by force, but because you would be forced to in order to participate in numerous activities such as purchasing beer, flying on a plane, renting a car, etc.

A license combines two things into one, and I think we would all agree that while all are allowed to initially obtain a drivers license once they reach a certain age, if you prove yourself unworthy (endangering others), that right can be taken away.

Originally posted by joechip

So just to comprehend your thoughts about "traveling on the land" are you saying that airline pilots shouldn't have to be trained or licensed as well? How about Air Force pilots? Or professional drivers such as taxicab; livery car? Should someone with 5 DUI's be able to pick you up in a cab; or fly a plane?

reply to post by zcflint05

 

Actually, I believe these examples you cite would fall quite comfortably under the legitimate regulatory powers of congress, being commercial "driving" rather than "traveling." Interesting you should use these examples, as they kind of illustrate the types of "driving" that may Constitutionally be regulated and licensed.

Um...airplanes are NOT just commerical instruments. I personally know two individuals who own a plane for personal use and many celebrities & CEOs own their own private jets. So people should be able to fly their own planes licensed or not? Are you going to tell that to the mother of the kids who got killed when some guy accidentally crashed his Cessna into their house because we needed more "freedom"?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

Actually, they are rolling in their graves. Almost 300 years later, and we have to ask permission from the government if we want to travel from Boston to Philly.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Actually you don't if you want to walk; take a bus; or hitchhike or hell even ride a horse. If you want to DRIVE there then you need to pass a test that makes sure you can handle a machine that has the potential to instantly kill people. All this "freedom" talk and you people forget this: in almost every way a car is much more dangerous than a gun. It's harder to get out of the way of; harder to avoid; and can kill multiple people with one impact. Remind me again why we shouldn't have to get a license to drive a car?

Reply to post by SlyingFaucers

As an ex-officer, I assure you … it is just a revenue stream.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Incorrect. I do beleive that is an added benefit, but not the reason for requiring them.

Think citizen database.

reply to post by SlyingFaucers


I misunderstood you the. My apologies. I thought you were saying that they were not a revenue stream. That is not what you meant. I agree with you

Originally posted by Alethea
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Whatever they have in mind with this---it is either a TRICK or just some kind of temporary distraction to get folks divided again and resentful toward one another. I certainly do not trust this have having any good intentions. No matter how "good" it may sound, nor how liberal, there will be some subtle hidden agenda. There's always a catch. Haven't you learned that yet?

LOL, well I immediately wondered if this congressman knows we'll all be confined to our own state (via Martial Law/ FEMA camp) thereby teasing us (for campaign votes) with things that won't matter

Now see? That's how MY mind usually works! So I agree, if it looks too good (especially via the government) it's usually a ruse or set up.

Originally posted by zcflint05

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

Actually, they are rolling in their graves. Almost 300 years later, and we have to ask permission from the government if we want to travel from Boston to Philly.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Actually you don't if you want to walk; take a bus; or hitchhike or hell even ride a horse.

So the right to bear arms only applies to muskets? The freedom of press only applies to those with old type-presses?

If you want to DRIVE there then you need to pass a test that makes sure you can handle a machine that has the potential to instantly kill people.

So we should pass a test to own a gun? Handle a carving knife? Slingshot water balloons at people

? All this "freedom" talk and you people forget this: in almost every way a car is much more dangerous than a gun. It's harder to get out of the way of; harder to avoid; and can kill multiple people with one impact. Remind me again why we shouldn't have to get a license to drive a car?

Because it is a right. When that right infringes on another person's rights, you get in trouble.

Lrn2Constitutuion

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I understand the proposition.

I also understand that cars take time to learn to operate and it would be a horrible idea to let any one just drive a car without proving they can blend with the rest of traffic and that they are capable of controlling their vehicle.

I've had a few experience where experience and ability to control the card made the difference between a dead (or seriously injured) and a live person.

But it all boils down to money/revenue. Why can't I....a licensed driver, teach someone else to drive?
Clearly I'm qualified cause I paid for that card telling me so!

But nope!
It has to be from an instructor (who knows no more about driving than I do) where he.... had to take classes to BECOME a certified teacher.....who then, turns around to charge YOU to learn to drive where YOU then, go PAY for a permit until it's time to PAY for a license.

And oh no. The fun doesn't stop there.
The car you're about to receive as a gift?
You now have to pay taxes on it and....you'll have to register it too!

That's right. That free car your daddy gifted you? Comes with a hefty price tag! Oh...then you have to carry insurance on it so if you hit another car, a good lawyer (that you hire of course) can turn a little fender bender into a profitable law suit!
The fun just never stops here in this Free and greedy country o'ours

reply to post by Human_Alien


I took drivers ed and drivers training, in high school, for free.

Never paid a penny to learn how to drive.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I took drivers ed and drivers training, in high school, for free.

Never paid a penny to learn how to drive.

~Heff

Well that's because you didn't directly pay rather the city/town residents did via their school taxes.
And that goes for people who don't even have kids. Or senior citizens whose children have children who have children and........who aren't even living in that community.

Nothing is free.

Not even air because it's filled with chemtrail spray now! So the medical-community and pharmaceutical companies profits from that now

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by zcflint05

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

Actually, they are rolling in their graves. Almost 300 years later, and we have to ask permission from the government if we want to travel from Boston to Philly.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Actually you don't if you want to walk; take a bus; or hitchhike or hell even ride a horse.

So the right to bear arms only applies to muskets? The freedom of press only applies to those with old type-presses?

If you want to DRIVE there then you need to pass a test that makes sure you can handle a machine that has the potential to instantly kill people.

So we should pass a test to own a gun? Handle a carving knife? Slingshot water balloons at people

? All this "freedom" talk and you people forget this: in almost every way a car is much more dangerous than a gun. It's harder to get out of the way of; harder to avoid; and can kill multiple people with one impact. Remind me again why we shouldn't have to get a license to drive a car?

Because it is a right. When that right infringes on another person's rights, you get in trouble.

Lrn2Constitutuion

No it's not a "right".

And does the bear arms theme extend to just muskets; or are you saying the bear arms theme extends to all "arms"? Should we be constitutionally allowed to carry a thermonuclear weapon around for protection? Hand grenades or rocket launchers? If you're going to play "the Constitution doesn't limit this" then I guess you better be ready for the rest of the Constitution to follow your lead.

A car is used in a place that it could harm other people at. It's also a complex machine that requires a high amount of intelligence and training to be operated correctly. And as a matter of fact; we do have certain benchmarks that firearms possession applies too. Mentally ill people can't own a firearm. Felons can't own a firearm. And there are other exclusions. Also; many states and cities have more draconian firearms possession limitiations that what I named above. But to say there is no qualification to own a gun shows a dramatic lack of research into the subject. And honestly; why shouldn't someone have to go through gun training to own a gun first? Uhhh...I think it's only sane that if someone's going to own a gun for their own protection they better damn well know how to shoot it; reload it and operate it. Just because there's no physical "gun license" (in some states and cities that exists) doesn't mean there aren't certain things you need to do to own a weapon.

It's not a right; simply put it's not enumerated to us in the Constitution. You still fail to answer the question if we are to let anyone fly a plane if they want too; drive a cruise liner if they have the cash to buy one. But if you're going to take away qualifications for driving then you're going to have to take away qualifications for those too. Pure idiocy. There are certain things in society that only responsible people should be able to do--once of those is drive a car. Should we repeal DUI laws too? Because after all; if someone gets a DUI and hasn't hit anyone; who's rights are they really violating? Under your theme we would have to wait for someone to actually damage property or people before they had sanctions levied against them. You care to tell that to the parents of a child who got murdered by a repeat drunk driver?

reply to post by zcflint05


This bill is about PERMISSION to drive. He is not saying we don't need to know how to drive.

Hey, I learned how to walk. I don't need a license to do that.
I also learned how to change a tire. No license required there either.

Passing a driving test hardly assures safety on our roads. Especially if you hit a pot hole that the city fails to fix.


And for the person who said: driving is a privileged?
Yeah, according to our parents!

This is OUR country. Why must we be licensed and pay someone somewhere, to do everything?
In New Jersey they're trying to pass a Bill requiring bicycles to have plates now. That means registrations on BICYCLES!
Are they kidding us?

This is all about money
Money
Money
Money

None of this has anything what-so-ever to do with our safety.
This is about us paying them and them..... fining us when we don't comply.

This world is in the state it's in because of all this greed!
And planet Earth is about to bunk a bunch of people off very soon because even SHE knows, how ridiculously greedy this world has gotten!