Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

page: 23
88
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
How about you teach me to fish, as it were, and help educate me?

Please post some evidence of 1 single person ever successfully arguing that the right to travel in the Constitution allows them to not need a Drivers License. It should be easy to find, as this law is so obviously unConstitutional, right?
edit on 13-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


The U.S. Constitution does not grant us rights. It does not need to mention motor vehicles for us to have a right to operate one without a license. Enumeration of the Constitution does not mean that our rights are restricted by failure to be specifically identified in the U.S. Constitution.

Look up the Bill of Rights.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


It is a commonly held opinion that all idiots are a danger to society.

Blindly following laws with out reason is, IMO, idiotic.



Agreed, and if you knew me, you would realize I am no authoritarian.

But you must agree that common sense rules are sometimes needed, no? Especially in our litigious society?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I can only lead you to water, I can not make you drink.

You can stand there like a child with his hands over his eyes saying, "no, no, no!"

Or you can open your eyes and face reality.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


The U.S. Constitution does not grant us rights. It does not need to mention motor vehicles for us to have a right to operate one without a license. Enumeration of the Constitution does not mean that our rights are restricted by failure to be specifically identified in the U.S. Constitution.

Look up the Bill of Rights.



Then why were those specific rights enumerated in the Constitution?? I agree the Constitution does not give us our rights, but it outlines our specific rights as humans in America.

Your argument of "Well, it doesnt say I couldnt do that anywhere!" is the EXACT REASON we have so many laws now...because some jackass always had to push the boundaries a little more, and then it had to be outlawed.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I can only lead you to water, I can not make you drink.

You can stand there like a child with his hands over his eyes saying, "no, no, no!"

Or you can open your eyes and face reality.



I agree brother.

Do you feel I should be able to get in a helicopter and travel in it without a license or training?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





But you must agree that common sense rules are sometimes needed, no? Especially in our litigious society?


Yes, Exactly.

Our society has became much more litigious over the last few decades on purpose, because the enables those in positions of power to strip us of our rights. Traffic laws have been used very proactively to strip us of our rights.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





But you must agree that common sense rules are sometimes needed, no? Especially in our litigious society?


Yes, Exactly.

Our society has became much more litigious over the last few decades on purpose, because the enables those in positions of power to strip us of our rights. Traffic laws have been used very proactively to strip us of our rights.



Give me a break. A cop pulling you over for going 80 in a 65 is not restricting your rights. You getting pulled over for not signaling a turn in heavy traffic is not stripping you of your rights - it is punishing you for acting stupid in public and endangering other peoples safety.

You guys are all about individualism and rights....but yet you want to give people the ability to trample all over my personal safety.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Last reply, then gotta go.


Do you feel I should be able to get in a helicopter and travel in it without a license or training?


Sure, its your funeral. Even Gramps gave the kids training before letting them loose on the tractor.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Last reply, then gotta go.


Do you feel I should be able to get in a helicopter and travel in it without a license or training?


Sure, its your funeral. Even Gramps gave the kids training before letting them loose on the tractor.



Thats just the thing...its not just my funeral. What if I decided to try and fly my kid into his preschool? Or maybe I decided to MediVac my wife into the hospital....thats my right to travel, is it not? So what happens when I crash into the cancer ward with no license??



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
 



Really...can you point out the usage of the word "automobile" (or "motor carriage" perhaps) to me in the Constitution?


I will. Right after you show me where the specific words "nuclear weapons" are used in prohibiting me from having one.



I have positively provided proof over and over. The fact is that you three just refuse to accept it. You have a fallacious argument.


You have failed to provide any "proof" of anything at all. What you have provided is "evidence", and it has been shown precisely where your evidence fails to support your contention.

A "fallacious argument" indeed.


edit on 2012/4/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Give me a break. A cop pulling you over for going 80 in a 65 is not restricting your rights. You getting pulled over for not signaling a turn in heavy traffic is not stripping you of your rights - it is punishing you for acting stupid in public and endangering other peoples safety.


Precisely - but it has no bearing at all on licensing schemes. Licensed drivers do those things, too, and get pulled over for them.



You guys are all about individualism and rights....but yet you want to give people the ability to trample all over my personal safety.


Your personal safety, just like mine, is in your own hands. If you rely on a government to look after it, rather than taking that responsibility for yourself, you will eventually be in for a rude awakening when there is not cop on the scene.

In reference to your question about driving a helicopter without a license, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have at it!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





Then why were those specific rights enumerated in the Constitution?? I agree the Constitution does not give us our rights, but it outlines our specific rights as humans in America.


The Bill of Rights comes with a Ninth Amendment, written with the express purpose of refuting your argument now:


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


Now, go ahead and insist that I am "misinterpreting" the Ninth Amendment, or even more amusingly, declare it all a hoax and parade around the site posting off topic posts campaigning to have me banned because you don't agree with law. I still hold out hope for you and believe all people are basically good, and continue my high expectations that you will at some point eschew your fallaciousness and flat out dishonesty in favor of logic, reason, and honor.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Thats just the thing...its not just my funeral. What if I decided to try and fly my kid into his preschool? Or maybe I decided to MediVac my wife into the hospital....thats my right to travel, is it not? So what happens when I crash into the cancer ward with no license??



Classic attempt to expand the argument into your own comfort zone and direct the conversation by weaving it into the ridiculous. You're becoming known for that tactic.

I see no reason you should not be allowed to do those things. It is between you and your child, and you and your wife. If they're OK with it, I am too.

When you crash into the cancer ward, you will be held accountable, one way or the other, regardless of licensing. Either you will be killed in the crash, removing you from the gene pool in a Darwin Award citation, or if you survive, you will be held responsible for the actions of the crash, again regardless of licensing.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


nenothtu has all ready made the point, but to add to that, I would ask you; are you suggesting that if you were a licensed helicopter pilot and crashed into a cancer ward this would relieve you of any personal responsibility? Of course, as nenothtu all ready pointed out, it is unlikely you would survive such a crash, and holding you personally accountable would be moot.

The fact of the matter is this: In every state there are licensed drivers who are cited for reckless driving. There are licensed drivers who are charged with vehicular homicide. There are licensed drivers who are ticketed for obstructing the right of way. Licensing schemes do not in any way protect the rights of any individual, and only serve to increase governmental power, and raise revenue for that government.

Those are the facts, not hypothetical arguments as you helplessly cling to, but facts.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 




Your example should be called "The Idiot Theory"

If you tried solo flying a helicopter without any experience or training, you wouldn't even make it off the field. They are very difficult to fly, and you would crash very quickly, and most likely die. Only an idiot would try such a thing.

Your example is so extremely devoid of a grasp of reality, it is ridiculous.

Basically your idea is that everyone should be restrained, because are always a few idiots out there willing to do extremely stupid things. This is then used as an excuse to justify unreasonable laws that greatly restrict our liberties. The bigger problem is that too many people are allowed to make willy nilly rules, based on the idiot theory.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
How about you look at motor vehicle deaths like this.

When I was 16 in 1966 MV deaths were about 50k per year. Then the government start meddling and required all of this safety stuff -- there was a lot of resistance to it - tons of resistance to it actually.

The population of the US was about 150 million people. Now it is 2012 almost 50 years later there are about 305 million people there are now less than 50k deaths a year. People must have gotten a whole lot smarter and more careful than they were in the 60s. Couldn't have been mandated safer cars right.

I pay attn to this I have been trying to kill myself in fast cars since 1964!!!





top topics
 
88
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join