Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: For every step forward....

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    For every step forward....

    Seriously, say what you want about liberals, but it appears citizens have more rights in most "liberal" states then they do in "conservative" states.

    Now Oklahoma is conducting checkpoints for insurance violations?
    http://news.onlineautoinsurance.com/...eckpoint-98489

    remember, assert your rights at these checkpoints and don't back down..

    while this video is a immigration check, the same concept should do...

    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-02-2012 at 03:46 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    When I am pulled over ... I just say "ask me any question in court" ... then when they ask again .. then I get tiffy with them asking them questions: a) are you deaf b) are you stupid c) are you deaf and stupid d) did yo' momma drop you as a child? e) have you sought professional medical treatment for your condition? f) how long have you been a member of the communist party?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    California has check points for auto insurance and its a liberal state.
    Insurance is not mandatory .. you can also have a bond

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    California has check points for auto insurance and its a liberal state.
    But they're the exceptions.

    look at the states that ban DUI checkpoints, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Iowa, only three red states ban such checkpoints and those are Idaho, Alaska, and Texas. And I think insurance checkpoints wouldn't fly as easily in most of the states where checkpoints are allowed.

    has anyone challenged insurance checkpoints?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    I have never heard that before. What do you mean by a "bond" ?
    In my state (Washington) one can be exempted from insurance requirements in two ways, one is to post a monetary amount equal to the minimum insurance requirements to the DOL who will hold it in case you get into an accident. say the state requires you have a policy of 50,000 dollars liability insurance, you can post 50,000 dollars to the DMV and the DMV will issue a certificate saying they have your 50,000 dollars that you must carry like an insurance card. this is called a certified deposit, and the other is to have a third party issue you a bond for the insurance amount and you must provide a copy of the bond certificate to the DMV, this is a surety bond, and works much like when you bond yourself with a bail bonsdman out of jail...

    but since the insurance amounts are so large, 60,000 in WA, most people just pay monthly premiums for an insurance policy.

    http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/insurance.html

    I don't know how they do it in California, I would assume they have a similar system.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    In my state (Washington) one can be exempted from insurance requirements in two ways, one is to post a monetary amount equal to the minimum insurance requirements to the DOL who will hold it in case you get into an accident. say the state requires you have a policy of 50,000 dollars liability insurance, you can post 50,000 dollars to the DMV and the DMV will issue a certificate saying they have your 50,000 dollars that you must carry like an insurance card. this is called a certified deposit, and the other is to have a third party issue you a bond for the insurance amount and you must provide a copy of the bond certificate to the DMV, this is a surety bond, and works much like when you bond yourself with a bail bonsdman out of jail...

    but since the insurance amounts are so large, 60,000 in WA, most people just pay monthly premiums for an insurance policy.

    http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/insurance.html

    I don't know how they do it in California, I would assume they have a similar system.
    +1 , correct

    What did they think I meant, James Bond? har har har ... really it does not surprise me though; 99% of drivers don't know the laws that they are subjected to ...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    so do you take a check for $50,000 down to the DMV ?
    I got it !

  8. #8
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But they're the exceptions.

    look at the states that ban DUI checkpoints, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Iowa, only three red states ban such checkpoints and those are Idaho, Alaska, and Texas. And I think insurance checkpoints wouldn't fly as easily in most of the states where checkpoints are allowed.

    has anyone challenged insurance checkpoints?
    As an Okie I'll let you know if it happens to me.

    Uninsured drivers are an issue here in the Sooner state. I carry uninsured driver coverage on my vehicles. I'm curious how other states have solved this issue as our legislature seems unable to come up with a solution. Maybe they could learn something.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The driver who jumped two curbs, crashed into my MIL's Blazer, and pushed it sideways, across the grass and the garden, through the house wall and into my then-13-yo son's bed was uninsured. BTW, he was also an illegal alien, unlicensed, drunk, and driving a car that the owner claimed he had no permission to use (ha!) (so I'd have no recourse against her).

    The driver who t-boned my wife's truck about a week ago, causing it to roll several times (she is reasonably OK, thanks to the seatbelt) announced at the scene that she had no insurance.

    I hate seatbelt laws, but use seat belts all the time because they do save lives, including my wife's. I hate helmet laws, but I would wear one if I rode on a motorcycle because they do save lives. I think laws requiring people who operate tons of machinery on our roads and highways to be insured for the damage they might do to others are reasonable. Choosing not wear belts or helmets affects the chooser only. Choosing not to be insured costs others money and has twice cost ME a bundle because these losers don't have enough assets to go after.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The driver who jumped two curbs, crashed into my MIL's Blazer, and pushed it sideways, across the grass and the garden, through the house wall and into my then-13-yo son's bed was uninsured. BTW, he was also an illegal alien, unlicensed, drunk, and driving a car that the owner claimed he had no permission to use (ha!) (so I'd have no recourse against her).

    The driver who t-boned my wife's truck about a week ago, causing it to roll several times (she is reasonably OK, thanks to the seatbelt) announced at the scene that she had no insurance.

    I hate seatbelt laws, but use seat belts all the time because they do save lives, including my wife's. I hate helmet laws, but I would wear one if I rode on a motorcycle because they do save lives. I think laws requiring people who operate tons of machinery on our roads and highways to be insured for the damage they might do to others are reasonable. Choosing not wear belts or helmets affects the chooser only. Choosing not to be insured costs others money and has twice cost ME a bundle because these losers don't have enough assets to go after.
    In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 12-04-2012 at 01:38 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.
    not for me, despite my clean accident history my being a young male works terribly against me. adding under insured motorist adds 15 dollars a month to my premium...

    however I do support the insurance mandates, cars cause damage like few other things do, but I do not support the government stopping every single car and demanding their papers. one, it's a needle in a haystack search that's statistically ineffective, second it's a violation of the 4th amendment.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    not for me, despite my clean accident history my being a young male works terribly against me. adding under insured motorist adds 15 dollars a month to my premium...
    Some may consider $15 a month cheep. Like most things should be in a free society, it should be your choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    however I do support the insurance mandates, cars cause damage like few other things do, but I do not support the government stopping every single car and demanding their papers. one, it's a needle in a haystack search that's statistically ineffective, second it's a violation of the 4th amendment.
    Yes, that was my point. Many people support the insurance mandate and that is how we end up with an over-bearing, tyrannical government. We have to recognize that in order to preserve liberty, we MUST preserve liberty even when we disagree with it.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    For every step forward....

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.
    The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property. Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights. Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.

    Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property. Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights. Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.

    Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    The helmet and seat belt laws were passed becuase of lobbying by big corporate robber barons in charge of the insurance industry, it's all about not having to pay-out.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    For every step forward....

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    The helmet and seat belt laws were passed becuase of lobbying by big corporate robber barons in charge of the insurance industry, it's all about not having to pay-out.
    No doubt they supported the effort because it was in their financial interest. However, barring support that it was only their effort, and not also the effort of well-meaning folks who think that government is the solution to every problem, I would not use the word "because."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property.
    Agreed. I have the RIGHT to use the common ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights.
    The state does not have the authority to allow or disallow. There are many ways people can cause property damage accidentally. Making a distinction because they are on publicly paid for right-of-ways is a pathway to tyranny. It gives the power of regulation to the state. The problem is easily solved by acquiring uninsured/under insured protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.
    You not only agree with mandated insurance, but have fooled yourself into thinking it is inline with a free republic. A government regulating it's citizens' movements is tyranny in it's most basic form.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I missed nothing. The distinction is irrelevant. Insurance mandates do not require that the insured have coverage that can pay any damage amount. There are limits. The problem still exists that damages may be incurred that cannot be paid for. That's life and there is no getting around it no matter how much you want government to make it go away. Getting the government involved with this is another mistake that trades liberty for perceived safety.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 12-04-2012 at 06:55 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    For every step forward....

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Agreed.

    The state does not have the authority to allow or disallow. There are many ways people can cause property damage accidentally. Making a distinction because they are on publicly paid for right-of-ways is a pathway to tyranny. It gives the power of regulation to the state. The problem is easily solved by acquiring uninsured/under insured protection.

    You not only agree with mandated insurance, but have fooled yourself into thinking it is inline with a free republic. A government regulating it's citizens' movements is tyranny in it's most basic form.

    I missed nothing. The distinction is irrelevant. Insurance mandates do not require that the insured have coverage that can pay any damage amount. There are limits. The problem still exists that damages may be incurred that cannot be paid for. That's life and there is no getting around it no matter how much you want government to make it go away. Getting the government involved with this is another mistake that trades liberty for perceived safety.
    The State absolutely has the authority to allow or disallow anything within its constitutionally defined powers (State constitution in the case of auto insurance laws). Whether or not you THINK they should is a matter of opinion.

    Some people incorrectly define a free Republic as anarchy. The Founders, the Framers, and I do not. You do. Your rights allow you to do so, but your opinion doesn't and won't ever hold sway.

    You don't see the significance of the distinction. I will point it out again, not for your benefit (since you refuse to see it, plain though it may be), but for the benefit of those reading the thread and honestly trying to arrive at a rational conclusion:

    Seatbelt and helmet laws protect us from ourselves. We are quite capable of making trade-offs that involve only us, whereby we can sacrifice a measure of safety in the pursuit of happiness. Insurance laws protect us from the actions of others who are using the publicly-owned byways. That distinction is factual, and not opinion. IMO, because of that distinction, it is reasonable for government to protect my property from the irresponsible actions of folks using the public byways.

    Your opinion differs. I don't care. The case has been stated for those reading the thread, so I will move on. Have a good day.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14

    what's really wrong with drunk drivers is

    nobody pulls their sorry butts out of their cars, knocks them to the ground and kicks their lower spines until the ONLY driving they CAN do is with a wheelchair!

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnieman View Post
    what's really wrong with drunk drivers is
    nobody pulls their sorry butts out of their cars, knocks them to the ground and kicks their lower spines until the ONLY driving they CAN do is with a wheelchair!
    That type of thinking is hardly condoned here.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-05-2012 at 04:22 AM. Reason: completed quote
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, insurance or bond is one of those thangs that is required for the privilege. I do not see it as a liberal or conservative issue.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, insurance or bond is one of those thangs that is required for the privilege. I do not see it as a liberal or conservative issue.
    Why is it a privilege?

    Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

    I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why is it a privilege?

    Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

    I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.
    This idea caught on because the word "driving" has a legal definition and is usually used in the context of commerce which, the state has the authority to regulate. The state has simply applied that term to all modes of conveyance and has usurped our right to travel.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Driving is not a privilege.

    Traveling is indeed a right and not a privilege.

    Operating a motor vehicle on a public byway is a privilege. That is reality, whether you like it or not.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why is it a privilege?

    Does this mean that any new invention of basic rights like traveling, free speech, bearing arms....etc....are privileges?

    I used to buy into that state argument, I don't anymore.
    You do not need a drivers license and a car to travel, or free speech, or to bear arms.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The State absolutely has the authority to allow or disallow anything within its constitutionally defined powers (State constitution in the case of auto insurance laws). Whether or not you THINK they should is a matter of opinion.
    My state does not include in its constitution the authority to regulate private modes of transportation. Does yours? I doubt it. Just because it can regulate the insurance business within its borders hardly gives it the authority to regulate travel.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Some people incorrectly define a free Republic as anarchy. The Founders, the Framers, and I do not. You do. Your rights allow you to do so, but your opinion doesn't and won't ever hold sway.
    Anarchy? Strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You don't see the significance of the distinction. I will point it out again, not for your benefit (since you refuse to see it, plain though it may be), but for the benefit of those reading the thread and honestly trying to arrive at a rational conclusion:
    Yes there is a distinction and it is irrelevant when determining authority of the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Seatbelt and helmet laws protect us from ourselves. We are quite capable of making trade-offs that involve only us, whereby we can sacrifice a measure of safety in the pursuit of happiness. Insurance laws protect us from the actions of others who are using the publicly-owned byways. That distinction is factual, and not opinion. IMO, because of that distinction, it is reasonable for government to protect my property from the irresponsible actions of folks using the public byways.:
    I have a right to use the publicly-owned byways. That is factual and not opinion. Where in your state's constitution does it get the authority to regulate my right? By your logic, we should all have to have mandated insurance to carry a firearm.

    BTW - Insurance laws protect us from nothing... as is evident from the number of complaints about un-insured people. This is the same type of poor arguments used for "common sense" gun control.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Your opinion differs. I don't care. The case has been stated for those reading the thread, so I will move on. Have a good day.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    My opinion does differ and you should care. I have seen you make quite a bit of progress over the last few months and you're gradually coming to the side of liberty. Maybe one day you'll finally make the complete trip and join those that fight for liberty even when we disagree with it. Have a good day as well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •