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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Part of the training is you do have an influence over your young driver and are expected to perform a certain number of spectator hours of their operation of the motor vehicle they seek a license of.

I would prefer that the person giving driving instruction have more knowledge than you do. "But Ive been driving for 30 years!" So have they, and they also have advanced knowledge of all the rules of the road. I often think I know everything, but these people truely do about driving. Not everything is a conspiracy.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Human Alien, You make valid points but fail to see that not everyone can properly operate a vehicle without training and that an untrained driver is putting OTHER lives at risk. Not saying that driving on a public road is a guarantee of safety, but it surely is more safe than an ungoverned system as you propose.


MBF

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Not having a license will NOT stop people from driving. I was in a wreck a few months ago. The woman that hit me was stopped for not making a complete stop at a stop sign, Then it was determined that her license was suspended. They were trying to arrest her and she took off, when she did, the police woman's vest caught on the door and was dragged down the road. This got EVERYBODY chasing her(32 cars). She had just came through a school zone when she hit me doing 120mph. By the way, no insurance either.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


Well maybe it shoul be simply that you MUST pass a test of competency to drive, they give you a permit and that's it for life..
NO annual licence fee that's nothing but a money grabbing scam anyway...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Also a good point, but a deterrent will never become an absolute unless you lobby for something that seems to be the exact opposite of the idea at play here -- more controls over people, which they dont want.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
A company called Tiger Trucks started making little pickups in Oregon. They don't meet DOT's regulations for use on US roads.

So the Governor of Oregon declared they are legal for use on all Oregon roads...thus abolishing the Fed's over regulation thats priced Americans out of automobiles

It's good to see another State fight against Congress/Federal Government.

Would you believe the US Air Force put out a contract to buy some little trucks and didn't award the contract to Tiger Trucks which are made in Oregon? They awarded the contract to another company who obtained their vehicle parts from IRAN. The US Air Force bought Iranian little trucks. Put their budgeted money into Iranians pockets instead of American workers....

Everyone needs to fight against all these regulations to get America back. Where did the Trillions go from Americans being forced to buy car insurance????? Somebody has it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlyingFaucers
Human Alien, You make valid points but fail to see that not everyone can properly operate a vehicle without training and that an untrained driver is putting OTHER lives at risk. Not saying that driving on a public road is a guarantee of safety, but it surely is more safe than an ungoverned system as you propose.


Like I suggested. Give people a report card then.
Require them to take a test, then when they pass, give 'em a big fat star.
If they fail, give them an F and let them drive.

That's about the same guarantee I take when I'm driving 70 MPH down a highway.
And trust me, the 'licenses' that many seniors over 80 down here hold? Means nothing!

And people are going to drive anyway.

Wait until we're tracked via Chips, mandatory GPS's (which are on all new cars) and kill-switches on all vehicles.
If you let your insurance lapse...they'll shut your car off.
That parking ticket you failed to pay? No driving until it's paid.
Didn't pay your income tax or child support? Zap goes your car.


This IS coming folks. Better know it. And this is because so many of you have been so complacent and compliant your entire duration on this planet. You don't realize your Rights. You've been brainwashed into thinking everything is a privileged.
You think this is a great country because we have certain freedoms like....freedom of speech etc?
It is our birth RIGHT to speak. Are you kidding me thinking this is a good thing that our country bestows that on us?

You all deserve this! You're all slaves to the Elite.
Me included but at least I've come to realize what's wrong. Only it's come later in life for me and this congressman knows it too



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I dont see why you would not first deem one fit to drive?

I do see your point, but the fact of the matter is this deterrent does keep a large portion of dangeroous drivers off of the road.
edit on 1-2-2011 by SlyingFaucers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Do people have a right to drive with a suspended license?

No.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Is this man insane?

People may have a right to travel, but other people also have a right to live.

The roads pose a huge threat to life at the best of times. And now some lunatic says it would be OK to drive without a licence?

America, I have to ask, why do you have insane people making your laws?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Is this man insane?

People may have a right to travel, but other people also have a right to live.

The roads pose a huge threat to life at the best of times. And now some lunatic says it would be OK to drive without a licence?


Your argument is non-sequitur. You have no way of knowing if the driver in front of you or behind you is licensed nor do you know if they even posses the skills needed to operate an automobile. Even licensed drivers, given the blessing of DMV (MVD in some places) workers who, for the most part don't take pride nor have passion in ensuring each person they are evaluating meets the highest of standards.

Given even that, we go through the correct motions to obtain the license doesn't guarantee we are always going to drive the state wants us to. How many drivers fail to use a blinker? Fail to turn on their headlights 15 mins prior to sunset? Know their hand signals? Check their mirrors constantly? Drive with their hands at 10 and 2 (this has changed I think....I think its now preferred to be at 5 and 8.

All a license serves is money to the state. Its a cash cow. It neither guarantees safety of other drivers nor makes the roads that much safer in my opinion.

Also, given the amount of traffic that flows on the roads, it is not that much of a threat.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


My reply is a sequitur - a direct reply to your post.

And we have more chance of surviving on the roads if other drivers are licenced.

Yes, we don't know if they are drunk, drugged etc.

But at least having a licence will keep a few more killers off the road.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Plenty of bad drivers where I live and I think that's a good enough case to toughen the standards for acquiring a license.

If you're too lazy to use your blinker or obey the 20 second rule, then you don't need to be on the road. Whatever happened to considerate drivers?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
No it's not a "right".


You say it is not but the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, set the precedence that the right to travel is protected within the Constitution.

Then we have that unknown and highly silent 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


While disregarded and overlooked, this amendment serves as the catch all in regards to individually held rights and the fact that the Bill of Rights was not meant to be exclusive to only certain rights listed for protection. Madison knew that and it was a great fear of his when drafting the Bill of Rights. That there would be those that would see such a Bill as being a grantor of rights, rather than a protector of free peoples' rights that are too numerous to list.

If we apply this to travel and therefore by extension the mode in which we travel, we can see that operating an automobile licensing is merely a money scheme. Me driving an automobile is no more dangerous than me operating a nail gun on a busy construction site. Both have the potential to do harm just as easy. Licensing a driver does not reduce that risk.

There are however instances where I believe some minimal government oversight is needed and warranted. Commercial truckers being one. There operation is more complex than a standard 2-wheel car.



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.


While I know you didn't bring this argument into this discussion I do take notice that this is a tactic that many use when it comes to bearing arms. Commonsense leads us to know that the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect and solidify the right of individuals to self-preservation. Arms as it is does not refer to missiles, tanks, or thermonuclear weapons.


It's not a right; simply put it's not enumerated to us in the Constitution.


Where does it say in the Constitution that I have a right to drink alcohol? Among other rights, they are covered again, by the Ninth Amendment. That being that individuals retain their rights even though they are not specifically enumerated within the Constitution. The basic logic from that is that as long as those rights on hold does not disparage or infringe upon another persons rights, they are fairly acceptable.


There are certain things in society that only responsible people should be able to do--once of those is drive a car.
And licensing does not guarantee that responsibility. No matter how much you think it does.



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?


What does this have to do with the discussion of licensing? You are bringing in an emotional argument separate from the core of the discussion. Sound DUI laws are pretty socially acceptable and ridding the system of licensing doesn't change that fact.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


My reply is a sequitur - a direct reply to your post.

And we have more chance of surviving on the roads if other drivers are licenced.

Yes, we don't know if they are drunk, drugged etc.

But at least having a licence will keep a few more killers off the road.


How do you know? That merely is a trust factor that you have placed in the ability of others not because they have a little card from the state. Driving is a skill that develops over time. Licensing doesn't develop that skill.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Plenty of bad drivers where I live and I think that's a good enough case to toughen the standards for acquiring a license.


Which won't fix the problem. People will do what they need to do in order to obtain that little card and then will develop their driving habits as their experience grows. Tougher standards won't produce better drivers.



If you're too lazy to use your blinker or obey the 20 second rule, then you don't need to be on the road. Whatever happened to considerate drivers?


We agree here! As time has worn on, I have grown considerably more conservative in my driving habits from when I was a young lad. That is natural. You begin to realize you are not unbreakable and that life is too short to try and make that off-ramp at 70 miles/hr cutting across 3 lanes at the last minute.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
I so hope this does pass for it will say to the GOV and others back off we are a free people not oppressed.


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



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
That's one way to invite every illegal in the country to your state. I hope he has room in the back yard.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by comody88
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Although I tend to agree with just about any law that gives us more freedom and less gov't restrictions I really don't see how driver licenses are unconstitutional



Because we are FREE citizens. Free citizens shouldn't have to pay for their Rights.We were born with them and now that more and more of our FREEDOMS are being taken away each and every day, it appears law-makers are getting a little fed up with it too and seek a way to 'right' some of the wrongs in this country.



Yes,but again you're confusing the issue of 'right' and 'privilege'. A privilege is extended to you beyond your normal rights if you have proven you are trustworthy and competent. That's the point of licensing to operate a machine of any kind. Machines are dangerous and their operation must be regulated somehow so as to avoid complete and utter chaos. Rights are the cake,privileges are the icing-so to speak.

You have the right to apply for a driver's license and the government has the right to deny you the privilege of a driver's license if you cannot prove yourself to be trustworthy and competent to operate a large,dangerous machine in compliance with the rules.

You have the right to travel where you like,it's the means by which you travel which must be regulated as long as the conveyance is still piloted by error-prone humans.




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join