From: Larry on
In article <1173296462.636426.167360(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our public streets were built on our property with
> > > our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right
> > > of Liberty, and we each have the Right to use our
> > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
> > > way.
> > >
> > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily
> > > for the use of the public in the ordinary way." --
> > > Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
> > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144
> >
> > And all this is true. However, you need to recognize
> > the ordinary way we use streets and highways is with
> > licensed drivers and registered vehicles. So, yes, the
> > dicta is an accurate statement but your conclusion is
> > incorrect.
>
> K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our public highways for
> personal travel in the ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that
> presume our Right to use our public highways for personal travel in
> the ordinary way is instead only a privilege.

That's not what K_flynn is saying. I have no doubt that's what you
think he said, but that's just because you're stupid.
From: proffsl on
k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > proffsl wrote:
> > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our public streets were built on our property
> > > > > > with our money for the purpose of enhancing
> > > > > > our Right of Liberty, and we each have the
> > > > > > Right to use our public highways for personal
> > > > > > travel in the ordinary way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are
> > > > > > primarily for the use of the public in the
> > > > > > ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton,
> > > > > > 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
> > > > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144
> > > > >
> > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to
> > > > > recognize the ordinary way we use streets and
> > > > > highways is with licensed drivers and registered
> > > > > vehicles. So, yes, the dicta is an accurate
> > > > > statement but your conclusion is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our
> > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
> > > > way, so long as we obey laws that presume our
> > > > Right to use our public highways for personal travel
> > > > in the ordinary way is instead only a privilege.
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> > >
> > > "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a system
> > > of licensing and registration as we PROVED to you
> > > last year in this thread. Therefore, saying we have the
> > > right to use the public highways in the ordinary way
> > > carries with it all the accoutrements of that ordinary
> > > way -- get a license.
> >
> > If what k_flynn claims here were true, then 120 years
> > ago citizens would have been required to "get a license"
> > in order to exercise their Right to use the public highways
> > for personal travel in the ordinary way.
>
> That is not implicit at all, and certainly not explicit.

Of course k_flynn would never explicitly state this, as that would
defeat the deception. But, deny it as he assuredly will, k_flynn did
inadvertently allow this implicit conclusion to come through. After
denying it here, he will next excuse it.


> > But, of course, no such requirement existed at that
> > time.
>
> Naturally. Public safety didn't demand it.

Now k_flynn is referring to, as an excuse, the exchange of his, yours
and my existing Rights for his, maybe yours, but not my, feeling of
safety under a police state. Driver Licensing serves no purpose for
safety that pre-existing laws against reckless endangerment, etc.,
didn't already serve, nor do I care to exchange my Rights for safety.
Not only does Driver Licensing serve no purpose for safety, but also
it has been extended to numerous non-driving requirements, having
nothing to do with one's ability to drive safely.


> If such uses had increased exponentially, and
> presented a safety hazard sufficient to warrant
> action, perhaps it would have come into play.

And k_flynn continues to excuse this exchange of our Rights for the
illusion of safety under a police state. Our public highways were
built on our public property with our tax money for the purpose of
enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of Liberty. Yet, it
is this very enhancement and increase of the exercise of our Right of
Liberty that is being used as an excuse to convert by fiat our Right
to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way
into a privilege, and at the same time to attach numerous non-driving
requirements onto this Right converted into a privilege.


> > Somewhere along the way, through deception on
> > the part of our states and through a lack of
> > dilligance on the part of the American citizens,
> > our states have presumed to convert this Right into
> > a privilege.
>
> Entirely wrong. There's no "deception" on the part of
> any states or anyone.

Here k_flynn denies that claiming our Right is only a privilege is
indeed a deception. This deception has been brow beaten into the
public to such a degree that many people begin to display spasmodic
thinking when confronted with the fact that we have the Right to use
our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, knowing
that the ordinary way we use our public highways these days is by
driving the automobile.


> We all know why it is, most accept it and some
> don't but a few of those prefer to whine on usenet
> about imagined conspiracies rather than simply
> organizing and campaigning for change to what
> currently is.

Here k_flynn whines about my choice as to how I exercise my Right of
Speech, and then presumes to offer unsolicited advice.


> > > It's a due process to which all people are entitled.
> >
> > Due process includes one's Right to be adequately
> > notified of charges or proceeding involving them, and
> > the opportunity to be heard at those proceedings.
>
> You are backwards on this. What you describe there
> is due process in a criminal or civil court proceeding,

I'm sure some of us would like to know what 'due process of law'
k_flynn suggests is being used to deny citizens not only of their
Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
way, but also of their Right to Procedural Due Process of Law in the
denial of their Right.


> And you get due process when you apply for a driver's
> license. It's not a "charges" situation.

I find it ironic when k_flynn suggests I have it backwards when he
refers to 'due process' as a process where one seeks permission to
exercise a Right.


> It *is* a due process; and it's for that reason that you
> are so so wrong about it being a "privilege" the way
> you construe it, at the whim of the state.

At the whim of the state, a Right was "so so wrongly" converted into a
privilege, regardless if this so called 'due process' k_flynn speaks
of, where one must seek permission to exercise a Right, has prescribed
hoops and prerequisites or not.


From: k_flynn on
proffsl wrote:
> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > proffsl wrote:
> > > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our public streets were built on our property
> > > > > > > with our money for the purpose of enhancing
> > > > > > > our Right of Liberty, and we each have the
> > > > > > > Right to use our public highways for personal
> > > > > > > travel in the ordinary way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are
> > > > > > > primarily for the use of the public in the
> > > > > > > ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton,
> > > > > > > 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
> > > > > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to
> > > > > > recognize the ordinary way we use streets and
> > > > > > highways is with licensed drivers and registered
> > > > > > vehicles. So, yes, the dicta is an accurate
> > > > > > statement but your conclusion is incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our
> > > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
> > > > > way, so long as we obey laws that presume our
> > > > > Right to use our public highways for personal travel
> > > > > in the ordinary way is instead only a privilege.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all.
> > > >
> > > > "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a system
> > > > of licensing and registration as we PROVED to you
> > > > last year in this thread. Therefore, saying we have the
> > > > right to use the public highways in the ordinary way
> > > > carries with it all the accoutrements of that ordinary
> > > > way -- get a license.
> > >
> > > If what k_flynn claims here were true, then 120 years
> > > ago citizens would have been required to "get a license"
> > > in order to exercise their Right to use the public highways
> > > for personal travel in the ordinary way.
> >
> > That is not implicit at all, and certainly not explicit.
>
> Of course k_flynn would never explicitly state this, as that would
> defeat the deception.

Also, I would not say it because it is not true!!

> But, deny it as he assuredly will, k_flynn did
> inadvertently allow this implicit conclusion to come through. After
> denying it here, he will next excuse it.

No need to excuse something that I neither implicitly nor explicitly
said. You cannot put words in my mouth; you can barley get coherent
words out of your own.

Get this straight: The "ordinary way" in which we use our streets
fully includes a system of licensing and registration. You cannot
illogically put that outside the system and claim it's not part of it.

> > > But, of course, no such requirement existed at that
> > > time.
> >
> > Naturally. Public safety didn't demand it.
>
> Now k_flynn is referring to, as an excuse, the exchange of his, yours
> and my existing Rights for his, maybe yours, but not my, feeling of
> safety under a police state.

Not at all. Perfectly constitutional invocation of the safety and
welfare clause. The people have spoken on this through their elected
represetrntatives.

> Driver Licensing serves no purpose for
> safety that pre-existing laws against reckless endangerment, etc.,
> didn't already serve, nor do I care to exchange my Rights for safety.
> Not only does Driver Licensing serve no purpose for safety, but also
> it has been extended to numerous non-driving requirements, having
> nothing to do with one's ability to drive safely.

We proved you wrong on this last year, Mr. Hit-and-Run.

> > If such uses had increased exponentially, and
> > presented a safety hazard sufficient to warrant
> > action, perhaps it would have come into play.

> > > Somewhere along the way, through deception on
> > > the part of our states and through a lack of
> > > dilligance on the part of the American citizens,
> > > our states have presumed to convert this Right into
> > > a privilege.
> >
> > Entirely wrong. There's no "deception" on the part of
> > any states or anyone.
>
> Here k_flynn denies that claiming our Right is only a privilege is
> indeed a deception.

Because it isn't.

> This deception has been brow beaten into the
> public to such a degree that many people begin to display spasmodic
> thinking when confronted with the fact that we have the Right to use
> our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way,

....which ordinary way includes licensing and registration.

> knowing
> that the ordinary way we use our public highways these days is by
> driving the automobile.

....WITH a license and registration. You cannot exclude it because that
IS part of the ordinary way. SCOTUS has already determined this.

> > We all know why it is, most accept it and some
> > don't but a few of those prefer to whine on usenet
> > about imagined conspiracies rather than simply
> > organizing and campaigning for change to what
> > currently is.
>
> Here k_flynn whines about my choice as to how I exercise my Right of
> Speech, and then presumes to offer unsolicited advice.

Advice you'd do well to take, whiner. You're the only one whining here
about imagined konspiracies, imagined loss of rights etc. Why don't
you just go draft a bill in whatever state you live in and get a
legislator to carry it? Then you'd be doing something other than
whining. I'd even support you in it.

> > > > It's a due process to which all people are entitled.
> > >
> > > Due process includes one's Right to be adequately
> > > notified of charges or proceeding involving them, and
> > > the opportunity to be heard at those proceedings.
> >
> > You are backwards on this. What you describe there
> > is due process in a criminal or civil court proceeding,
>
> I'm sure some of us would like to know what 'due process of law'
> k_flynn suggests is being used to deny citizens not only of their
> Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
> way, but also of their Right to Procedural Due Process of Law in the
> denial of their Right.

Your question fails, because your question states a lie. There is no
denial of the right to use highways in the ordinary way when you're
required to get a license, because a license IS the ordinary way. Your
failure to include this necessary element does not make it
unnecessary. Only a change in the law would do that. In the meantime,
it IS a due process to go down to DMV and follow the procedures to get
your license. That IS a due process.

> > And you get due process when you apply for a driver's
> > license. It's not a "charges" situation.
>
> I find it ironic when k_flynn suggests I have it backwards when he
> refers to 'due process' as a process where one seeks permission to
> exercise a Right.

What is the irony? As we amply proved to you last year as well as this
year, you need to get "permits" for many exercises of rights. This is
not a problem. Just go get it. No irony involved. You want to play a
softball game on the town ballfield, stand in line to get your permit.
You want to speed down my street? Get a driver's license.

> > It *is* a due process; and it's for that reason that you
> > are so so wrong about it being a "privilege" the way
> > you construe it, at the whim of the state.
>
> At the whim of the state, a Right was "so so wrongly" converted into a
> privilege, regardless if this so called 'due process' k_flynn speaks
> of, where one must seek permission to exercise a Right, has prescribed
> hoops and prerequisites or not.

Entirely wrong. As I have overwhelmingly demonstrated, there is no
state "whim" involved in your getting your license. I am shocked, in
fact, that a whining dopehead cop-killer-wannabe like you wouldn't
have been denied one if in fact it were at the whim of the state.

From: proffsl on
k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > proffsl wrote:
> > > > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Our public streets were built on our
> > > > > > > > property with our money for the purpose
> > > > > > > > of enhancing our Right of Liberty, and
> > > > > > > > we each have the Right to use our public
> > > > > > > > highways for personal travel in the
> > > > > > > > ordinary way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and
> > > > > > > > are primarily for the use of the public
> > > > > > > > in the ordinary way." -- Packard v.
> > > > > > > > Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
> > > > > > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to
> > > > > > > recognize the ordinary way we use streets
> > > > > > > and highways is with licensed drivers and
> > > > > > > registered vehicles. So, yes, the dicta is
> > > > > > > an accurate statement but your conclusion
> > > > > > > is incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our
> > > > > > public highways for personal travel in the
> > > > > > ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that
> > > > > > presume our Right to use our public highways
> > > > > > for personal travel in the ordinary way is
> > > > > > instead only a privilege.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a
> > > > > system of licensing and registration as we PROVED
> > > > > to you last year in this thread. Therefore, saying
> > > > > we have the right to use the public highways in
> > > > > the ordinary way carries with it all the
> > > > > accoutrements of that ordinary way
> > > > > -- get a license.
> > > >
> > > > If what k_flynn claims here were true, then 120
> > > > years ago citizens would have been required to
> > > > "get a license" in order to exercise their Right
> > > > to use the public highways for personal travel in
> > > > the ordinary way.
> > >
> > > That is not implicit at all, and certainly not
> > > explicit.
> >
> > Of course k_flynn would never explicitly state this,
> > as that would defeat the deception.
>
> Also, I would not say it because it is not true!!

Regardless of k_flynn's claim to honesty, he would have us believe we
have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the
ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that presume to convert that
Right into a privilege. Additionally, if a natural accoutrement of
that ordinary way was to "get a license", then 120 years ago citizens
would have been required to "get a license" in order to exercise their
Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
way.

Fact is, the requirement that we "get a license" is not a natural
accoutrement of "personal travel in the ordinary way", but instead it
is an artificial attachment made at the whim of the state. Given this
artificial attachment, K_flynn would have us think that "personal
travel in the ordinary way" really means "personal travel in the
permitted way".


> > But, deny it as he assuredly will, k_flynn did
> > inadvertently allow this implicit conclusion to come
> > through. After denying it here, he will next excuse it.
>
> No need to excuse something that I neither implicitly nor
> explicitly said.

Which explains k_flynn's need for excusing it.


> You cannot put words in my mouth;

I have put no words into k_flynn's mouth. Unlike k_flynn, when I
asked the question: "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what
objection could you have?". He insisted the question was invalid and
that I exchange the "someone" with "a toddler", so I obliged him to
demonstrate the validity of the question, and asked: "If a toddler is
driving in a safe manner, what objection could you have?". K_flynn
never did answer the question as I originally asked it, but he did
then begin to falsely claim I had said toddlers can drive safely.


> you can barley get coherent words out of your own.

Now k_flynn is attempting to divert the discussion from the issue onto
his impression of myself.


> Get this straight:

Coming from k_flynn, That would be an oxymoronic request.


> The "ordinary way" in which we use our streets fully
> includes a system of licensing and registration.
> You cannot illogically put that outside the system
> and claim it's not part of it.

Rather, it is k_flynn who is disingenuously attempting to convert the
meaning of "personal travel in the ordinary way" into "personal travel
in the permitted way", thereby artificially and illogically putting it
inside the system.


> > > > But, of course, no such requirement existed at
> > > > that time.
> > >
> > > Naturally. Public safety didn't demand it.
> >
> > Now k_flynn is referring to, as an excuse, the exchange
> > of his, yours and my existing Rights for his, maybe
> > yours, but not my, feeling of safety under a police
> > state. Driver Licensing serves no purpose for safety that
> > pre-existing laws against reckless endangerment, etc.,
> > didn't already serve, nor do I care to exchange my
> > Rights for safety. Not only does Driver Licensing serve
> > no purpose for safety, but also it has been extended to
> > numerous non-driving requirements, having nothing to do
> > with one's ability to drive safely.
>
> We proved you wrong on this last year, Mr. Hit-and-Run.

K_flynn often attempts to portray himself as the last word, never
thinking to examine his claims any further than merely making them.
Fact is, If someone hits you, your safety has already been
compromised, regardless if they run afterwards. And, in the very rare
event they were able to and did choose to run, this would become a
vehicle identification issue instead of a driver licensing issue. The
issue here is a driver licensing issue, therefore k_flynn's reference
to "Mr. Hit-and-Run" is completely non-sequitur.

Fact is, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for safety that pre-
existing laws against reckless endangerment, etc., didn't already
serve. Virtually everybody who seeks to obtain a Driver License
successfully gets one. And, in the state (California) with probably
the highest failure rate, the failure rate for renewals (experienced
drivers) is almost as high as the failure rate for originals (new
drivers). If these renewals were such unsafe drivers as this test
would have us believe, then it would seem they would have lost their
licenses due to unsafe driving on the highways.

The cause for the vast majority of highways is due to a driver who
WILL NOT drive safely instead of those who CAN NOT drive safely. Fact
is, virtually everybody over the age of 14 CAN drive safely, and the
fact that virtually everybody can successfully obtain a driver license
supports this. Driver Licensing tests can only determine who CAN drive
safely, and in no way can even pretend to determine who WILL NOT drive
safely.

For those drivers who WILL NOT drive safely, the only laws necessary
to remove them from the highways are the laws against reckless
endangerment, etc.. We don't need a Liberty License in order to be
denied, through due process of law, of our Right of Liberty. Nor do
we need a Driver License in order to be denied, through due process of
law, of our Right to Drive.


> > > If such uses had increased exponentially, and
> > > presented a safety hazard sufficient to warrant
> > > action, perhaps it would have come into play.
> >
> > And k_flynn continues to excuse this exchange of our
> > Rights for the illusion of safety under a police state.
> > Our public highways were built on our public property
> > with our tax money for the purpose of enhancing and
> > increasing the exercise of our Right of Liberty. Yet,
> > it is this very enhancement and increase of the exercise
> > of our Right of Liberty that is being used as an excuse
> > to convert by fiat our Right to use our public highways
> > for personal travel in the ordinary way into a privilege,
> > and at the same time to attach numerous non-driving
> > requirements onto this Right converted into a privilege.

Our public highways were built on our public property with our tax
money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our
Right of Liberty. Yet it is this very enhancement and increase of the
exercise of our Right of Liberty that is being used as an excuse to
convert, at the whim of the state, our Right to use our public
highways for personal travel in the ordinary way into a privilege. The
more our public highways become unusable by anything but the
automobile, the more this lie that driving is a privilege makes us all
prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.


> > > > Somewhere along the way, through deception on
> > > > the part of our states and through a lack of
> > > > dilligance on the part of the American citizens,
> > > > our states have presumed to convert this Right
> > > > into a privilege.
> > >
> > > Entirely wrong. There's no "deception" on the part
> > > of any states or anyone.
> >
> > Here k_flynn denies that claiming our Right is only
> > a privilege is indeed a deception.
>
> Because it isn't.

To claim a Right is only a privilege is indeed a deception.


> > > We all know why it is, most accept it and some
> > > don't but a few of those prefer to whine on usenet
> > > about imagined conspiracies rather than simply
> > > organizing and campaigning for change to what
> > > currently is.
> >
> > Here k_flynn whines about my choice as to how I
> > exercise my Right of Speech, and then presumes to
> > offer unsolicited advice.
>
> Advice you'd do well to take, whiner.

K_flynn would do well to cease with the personal attacks...


> You're the only one whining here about imagined
> konspiracies, imagined loss of rights etc.

....but, he won't. And, as for k_flynn's claim above that if it wasn't
true he wouldn't say it, Alan Baker's, Ashton Crusher's, Brent P's,
and Chas's participation in this same thread contradicts what he says
here.


> > > > > It's a due process to which all people are
> > > > > entitled.
> > > >
> > > > Due process includes one's Right to be adequately
> > > > notified of charges or proceeding involving them,
> > > > and the opportunity to be heard at those proceedings.
> > >
> > > You are backwards on this. What you describe there
> > > is due process in a criminal or civil court proceeding,
> >
> > I'm sure some of us would like to know what 'due process
> > of law' k_flynn suggests is being used to deny citizens
> > not only of their Right to use the public highways for
> > personal travel in the ordinary way, but also of their
> > Right to Procedural Due Process of Law in the denial of
> > their Right.
>
> Your question fails, because your question states a lie.

It is a Right that has been converted into a privilege at the whim of
the state.


> There is no denial of the right to use highways in the
> ordinary way when you're required to get a license,
> because a license IS the ordinary way. Your failure to
> include this necessary element does not make it unnecessary.
> Only a change in the law would do that. In the meantime,
> it IS a due process to go down to DMV and follow the
> procedures to get your license. That IS a due process.

I'm sure some of us would like to know what 'due process of law'
k_flynn suggests is being used to deny citizens not only of their
Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary
way, but also of their Right to Procedural Due Process of Law in the
denial of their Right.


> > > And you get due process when you apply for a driver's
> > > license. It's not a "charges" situation.
> >
> > I find it ironic when k_flynn suggests I have it backwards
> > when he refers to 'due process' as a process where one seeks
> > permission to exercise a Right.
>
> What is the irony?

I find it ironic when k_flynn suggests I have it backwards when he
refers to 'due process' as a process where one seeks permission to
exercise a Right.


> As we amply proved to you last year as well as this year,
> you need to get "permits" for many exercises of rights.
> This is not a problem. Just go get it. No irony involved.
> You want to play a softball game on the town ballfield,
> stand in line to get your permit.

Now k_flynn is attempting to shift the discussion from "licenses" to
"reservations" by using the deceptive term "permit". Not only is a
"license" and a "permit" two entirely different things, but also this
"permit" k_flynn speaks of here is really only a "reservation".
Obviously, two baseball games can't be played on the same ball-field
at the same time, which requires that players must first obtain a
reservation to the ball-field, usually on a first come first serve
basis.

Just as where crossing traffic can not use an intersection at the same
time, they must obtain a reservation to the intersection by either a
red-light, or by a stop sign on a first come first serve basis. This
does not imply that one must first obtain a license to obtain a
reservation to the intersection by waiting in queue, as all traffic,
including not only motor vehicles, but bicycles, scooters, and
pedestrians as well, must wait for their reservation to the
intersection.

K_flynn has attempted this deception before, and was thoroughly
defeated then as well. And, to k_flynn in his own words at that time:
"Stick a fork in yourself, you're done!"


> > > It *is* a due process; and it's for that reason that
> > > you are so so wrong about it being a "privilege" the
> > > way you construe it, at the whim of the state.
> >
> > At the whim of the state, a Right was "so so wrongly"
> > converted into a privilege, regardless if this so called
> > 'due process' k_flynn speaks of, where one must seek
> > permission to exercise a Right, has prescribed
> > hoops and prerequisites or not.
>
> Entirely wrong. As I have overwhelmingly demonstrated,
> there is no state "whim" involved in your getting your
> license.

As every state has their own distinct set of hoops and prerequisites,
the prescribed hoops and prerequisites clearly are at the whim of the
state.


> I am shocked, in fact, that a whining dopehead
> cop-killer-wannabe like you wouldn't have been
> denied one if in fact it were at the whim of
> the state.

And once again, as usual, k_flynn lowers himself to the level of a
worm by spewing even more personal attacks and false accusations.


From: Ed Pirrero on
On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Our public highways were built on our public property with our tax
> money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our
> Right of Liberty.

Actually, not. At least with the interstate highway system.

Hint: Eisenhower.

E.P.