Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: proffsl on 2 Mar 2007 06:09 tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Larry wrote: > > proffsl wrote: > > > > > > Driving is not a privilege. > > > > Yes it is. > > No it's not. Bravo Brent, for standing up for what's Right. > We are seeing the problems with it being considered > as such with the government tying all sorts of things > to it that have nothing to do with driving. They have taken a necessity of Liberty, and through their lies and illegal state laws, they have presumed to convert our Right to perform this necessity of Liberty into a privilege, and in doing so they have planted their hooks into us, and now they are just reeling us in. It's time we stood up against this Unconstitutional notion that this necessity of Liberty, our Right to Drive Safely, is only a privilege, and DEMAND it be recognized as the Right it is. > From federal ID requirements to child support payments. > You cannot have the common form of transport a > government granted privilege in a free nation without > this danger. There is no use trying to argue this issue by using state laws, because it is the states and their laws, and our representatives, who are LYING to us. And, if you ask a Liar to tell you the truth, they will LIE. And, if you tell a Liar the Truth, they will invariably call you a Liar. Many people say the Constitution's use of the word "arms" is vague. NO. IT IS NOT VAGUE. IT IS BROAD. If the 2nd Amendment had have said "the Right of the people to keep and bear SOMETHING shall not be infringed", now that would have been vague. But, it didn't. It said "the Right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." The word "arms" is broad in it's meaning, and encompasses many things, and was meant to include many things, such as sticks, bow & arrows, knives, pistols, rifles, and anything else that in and of itself doesn't pose a danger to others. Well, our Right of Locomotion: "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274 ,,, our Right of Locomotion was also intended to be interpreted in a BROAD sense, including any ORDINARY form of Locomotion ORDINARILY used for personal travel on our public highways, today MOST DEFINATELY including the Driving of Automobiles. Our public highways were built on our property with our money, and they are intended to enhance our Right of Liberty. But, the more our public highways are made 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.
From: Steve B on 2 Mar 2007 12:17 "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote <nothing important> plonk
From: k_flynn on 2 Mar 2007 12:22 Brent P wrote: > In article <x-A91810.22334201032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > > >> Driving is not a privilege. > > > Yes it is. > > No it's not. We are seeing the problems with it being considered as such > with the government tying all sorts of things to it that have nothing to > do with driving. From federal ID requirements to child support payments. > You cannot have the common form of transport a government granted > privilege in a free nation without this danger. Those subsequent uses of the data are a completely separate issue from whether it is constitutional to require driver licensing to operate a motor vehilce in the first place. > >> Driving is a Right. > > No it isn't. > > Closer to a 'right' (assuming what is meant in those enumerated in the > constitution) than a priviledge. But subject to constitutional provisions, as discussed ad nauseum last year, for public safety and welfare.
From: Harry K on 2 Mar 2007 12:36 <snip> > Either respond to the points, or put on your blinders and go away > without adding to the 560 heckels you are betting on, or prove > yourself to be a disrupter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - YOu have tried the same old arguments repeatedly in the past and been refuted every time. The epitome of stupidity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. If you are so certain of your facts, try something new. Like putting a case through the courts and see if you can change their minds. Good luck with that but at least it would be more productive than blathering along in usenet. Harry K
From: Pat O'Connell on 2 Mar 2007 12:42
Larry wrote: > In article <1172812732.520658.142680(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> > Proffsl, last year your same arguments were beaten to pieces >> > in hundreds of posts that showed the fallacy of your arguments. >> >> My arguments were heckled by certain posters, > > Yes, they were. They were also *resoundingly* defeated on the merits. Proffy is a troll, and has been on my filter list for a long time. You know he's a troll, so why are you responding to him/her/it? -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... |