An attempted mass killing this weekend.

On-Topic-ish: The analogy of a car vs. a gun is very appropriate. Off-Topick: What is not appropriate is a cop telling me that my civic duty is to be defined by a cop. A cop should never throw stones when he resides in a glass house.

OC for ME said:

On-Topic-ish: The analogy of a car vs. a gun is very appropriate. Off-Topick: What is not appropriate is a cop telling me that my civic duty is to be defined by a cop. A cop should never throw stones when he resides in a glass house.

Click to expand...

Driving is a privilege . RKBA is a right. The distinctions are immense. Anybody who thinks the state doesn't have immense interest in regulating the single most dangerous activity the average person engages in, and that injures or kills scores of thousands of people every year, doesn't understand the difference between libertarianism and libertinism

As for your opinion. Groovy. My opinion differs. First of all, whether it's a cop or not a cop is irrelevant. I am a concerned citizen before I am a cop. And my opinion as to what your civic duty is, is just that, my opinion. It would be no different if I was a stockbroker. Imo, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Imo, if you are not kind and polite to people, you are in the wrong. Imo, if you know that your local PD is doing stuff wrong, and you make zero effort to effect change, you are shirking your civic duty. Imo, if you aren't keeping an eye out for your neighbors, you are shirking your civic duty.

Imo, if you are just going to sit in your basement, eating hot pockets while your mama brings you lemonade, but aren't doing your civic duty, you got nobody but yourself to blame if your pd sucks.

I've seen the good that people who do their civic duty can do. Heck, today is national night out! and I'll be meeting with block watch people and other concerned citizens who have gone way beyond their civic duty to make their communities safer and to help fight crime. Bully for them

Imo, it's anybody's prerogative, cop, stockbroker, or fisherman to give his opinion on what people's civic duty is. And it's anybody else's opinion to agree or disagree.

PALO said:

Driving is a privilege . RKBA is a right. The distinctions are immense.

Click to expand...

Yeah... you said that already. If you're not gonna read our posts why should we read yours?

PALO said:

Anybody who thinks the state doesn't have immense interest in regulating the single most dangerous activity the average person engages in, and that injures or kills scores of thousands of people every year, doesn't understand the difference between libertarianism and libertinism

More irrelevant useless stuff SNIPED

Click to expand...

The state has only the authority to regulate that which the constitution gives it authority. It doesn't have the authority to regulate the right to travel.

You pretend to understand liberty.

georg jetson said:

Yeah... you said that already. If you're not gonna read our posts why should we read yours?



The state has only the authority to regulate that which the constitution gives it authority. It doesn't have the authority to regulate the right to travel.

You pretend to understand liberty.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. What you say is generally true about the FEDERAL govt. , but guess what? States can regulate all kinds of stuff the feds can't. If we didn't have crappy unconstitutional case law like Raich, the feds would be regulating even less.

You pretend to understand constitutional law.

georg jetson said:

You have to understand that the term "motor vehicle" is a legal term. ....

Click to expand...

Actually, I understand that, which is why I have the opinion I do. I don't see a "right" to operate a "motor vehicle," nor do I believe there should be one.

I'm willing to be convinced.

If you aren't willing to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, hire a driver. You are still free to roam the country without papers.

I see a difference between motor vehicles and firearms, but I'm willing to listen.

MAC702 said:

Actually, I understand that, which is why I have the opinion I do. I don't see a "right" to operate a "motor vehicle," nor do I believe there should be one.

I'm willing to be convinced.

If you aren't willing to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, hire a driver. You are still free to roam the country without papers.

I see a difference between motor vehicles and firearms, but I'm willing to listen.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. And fwiw, you can drive on private property w.;o a license or insurance or a registered vehicle. At least in my state

PALO said:

Driving is a privilege . RKBA is a right. The distinctions are immense. Anybody who thinks the state doesn't have immense interest in regulating the single most dangerous activity the average person engages in, and that injures or kills scores of thousands of people every year, doesn't understand the difference between libertarianism and libertinism

Click to expand...

:lol:

Anybody who has ever contrasted libertarianism with "libertinism" is automatically and forever a joke.

Here we go again.

Breathing is not a right in the Constitution--because it is an integral part of the right to life a GGONIYP right. The RKBA is in the Constitution because it is not a GGONIYP right. That right is the right to self-defense which, again, is an integral part to the right to life. Driving is not a GGONIYP right either. That right is the right to travel.

The RKBA is in the Constitution because King George tried to take our arms so he could force us to remain under his tyranny, not because it is a GGONIYP right, but because it is designed to prevent or to end tyranny. The Framers saw no need to protect any particular implementation of travel like they saw a need to protect a particular implementation of the right to travel. Therefore, driving is not a right, not GGONIYP nor enumerated. Driving is a privilege.

GGONIYP = God given (or natural, if you prefer).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

MAC702 said:

Actually, I understand that, which is why I have the opinion I do. I don't see a "right" to operate a "motor vehicle," nor do I believe there should be one.

I'm willing to be convinced.

If you aren't willing to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, hire a driver. You are still free to roam the country without papers.

Click to expand...

Part of me wants to say "if you aren't willing to be licensed to carry a semi-automatic firearm, hire a bodyguard. You are still free to defend yourself with your hands", and leave it that. But, as you also said:

I see a difference between motor vehicles and firearms, but I'm willing to listen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what you see that difference as being.

Firearms and cars are both quite dangerous. They both are owned/used pursuant to enumerated constitutional rights. If you need more, it might help if you explain why.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is the car issue was explored during the reign of a SCOTUS who was happy to make absurd arguments which essentially amount to "if it didn't exist at the time of the framing, the framers couldn't have wanted the BoR to protect it" (see eye95's ridiculous reasoning above).

Speaking of eye95's post, as I already mentioned, the framers DID enumerate a right to travel. They didn't specify what means of conveyance are protected any more than the second amendment specifies what "arms" it protects.

I believe at this point it is incumbent upon y'all to explain exactly what the difference between these two cases is.

marshaul said:

Part of me wants to say "if you aren't willing to be licensed to carry a semi-automatic firearm, hire a bodyguard. You are still free to defend yourself with your hands", and leave it that. But, as you also said:



Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what you see that difference as being.

Firearms and cars are both quite dangerous. They both are owned/used pursuit to enumerated constitutional rights. If you need more, it might help if you explain why.

Click to expand...

The difference is the BOR. It quite explicitly states that the RKBA shall not be infringed.

You can look high and low but I see nothing in the BOR about the right to drive a vehicle. So you look at the activity. It's one that is fraught with danger to all involved (you can be driving perfectly and get hit by some nimrod), and you recgnize that STATES (not the federal govt) certainly have authoritah to regulate activities that pose a severe danger (the most dangerous thing most people will do ) to participants, that occur on public ways.

We also know irrefutably by NHTSA studies, that by regulation that danger can be substantially decreased .

That clearly falls under valid function of the state govt.

Imo, the govt regulates WAY too much stuff and stuff like drug use, prostitution, etc.etc should not even be in their purview.

But driving? Clearly there is valid reason for states to regulate it.

PALO said:

The difference is the BOR. It quite explicitly states that the RKBA shall not be infringed.

You can look high and low but I see nothing in the BOR about the right to drive a vehicle.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to bother considering the rest of your post, until you learn to rebut the arguments that have been made, instead of repeating arguments which have already been refuted.

The First Amendment said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

One cannot assemble if once cannot travel to do so; therefore, the first amendment necessarily protects travelling in the same way that - since one cannot keep and bear arms if one cannot first buy them - the second amendment must protect the right to buy arms. The SCOTUS agrees the Constitution establishes such a right, although they rely on the 14th amendment (leave it to the SCOTUS to make something simple into something convoluted).

Finally, the second amendment doesn't specify what sort of arms, but the SCOTUS decided in Heller that it must protect the most means of exercising the right today (that being semi-automatic handguns) to be of any effect.

Guess what the most popular means of travel to assemble is?

Therefore, I conclude that the enumerated right to assemble necessarily includes the right to do so by motor vehicle.

I have yet to see anybody rebut this argument directly. Every single time I've made it, the "privilege" crowd evades and attacks straw men.

Rebut, or go home.

MAC702 said:

Actually, I understand that, which is why I have the opinion I do. I don't see a "right" to operate a "motor vehicle," nor do I believe there should be one.

Click to expand...

Ok. I agree. Originally, the term "motor vehicle" is a definition given by the feds and the states to include those vehicles engaged in commerce. Using the public roads for commerce is not a right and therefore subject to regulation.

MAC702 said:

I'm willing to be convinced.

If you aren't willing to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, hire a driver. You are still free to roam the country without papers.

I see a difference between motor vehicles and firearms, but I'm willing to listen.

Click to expand...

It's not simply about traveling with your body. The right to travel includes your personal property. I pay for the roads so I have a right to use them in a private manner traveling with whatever private property I desire..

Marshall asked about what difference you see between motor vehicles and firearms. I'm interested to hear your answer.

Edit - I misspelled Marshaul...

PALO said:

I totally agree. And fwiw, you can drive on private property w.;o a license or insurance or a registered vehicle. At least in my state

Click to expand...

You're not reading the arguments counter to your points. That's rude.

georg jetson said:

Ok. I agree. Originally, the term "motor vehicle" is a definition given by the feds and the states to include those vehicles engaged in commerce. Using the public roads for commerce is not a right and therefore subject to regulation.

Click to expand...

Definitely. Whereas the government has usurped and monopolized our ability to travel by owning most roads (and banning other modes of conveyance on many of them), making it essentially impossible to avoid travelling by motor vehicle (be it bus or car or whatever) at least some of the time, it was never possible to convey goods for free. Freight has always incurred expense, not the least of which is the necessary maintenance of freight corridors.

I'm all for regulating the heck out of truckers (not to mention ending the covert subsidies by instituting taxes/fees proportional to the wear they generate) and other commercial drivers. They would see no less under private systems, and doing so is not in opposition to my strict voluntarism. (Granted, my definition of "regulating the heck out of" someone is probably different than most people's. :lol

marshaul said:

I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to keep and bear arms" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a semi-automatic handgun." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.



There are plenty of people who should not be carrying a semi-automatic handgun.



IMO, the standards to carry a semi-automatic handgun are too low, and fewer people should be able to do so. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for young adults.




Does that help?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I see a big difference. I'm willing to listen, but your line of reasoning here (which I agree works in many circumstances) just doesn't do it for me here.

MAC702 said:

No, it doesn't. I see a big difference. I'm willing to listen, but your line of reasoning here (which I agree works in many circumstances) just doesn't do it for me here.

Click to expand...

See post #32.

georg jetson said:

Ok. I agree. Originally, the term "motor vehicle" is a definition given by the feds and the states to include those vehicles engaged in commerce. Using the public roads for commerce is not a right and therefore subject to regulation.



It's not simply about traveling with your body. The right to travel includes your personal property. I pay for the roads so I have a right to use them in a private manner traveling with whatever private property I desire..

Marshall asked about what difference you see between motor vehicles and firearms. I'm interested to hear your answer.

Click to expand...

Okay, here are some actual thinking points that I can work with. Thank you.

I don't agree with a definition the uses the purpose for the vehicle. I agree with my state's definition (or at least its theory behind the definition) of a vehicle on a public road with an engine above a certain size (in our case 50cc).

Publicly available transportation where you are not the driver is plentifully available for both you and your belongings.

How exactly is it that you pay for the roads?

Marshaul (one of the better debaters we have here) did not ask me what differences I see. He assumed that I might see that there aren't any by replacing the words. Sometimes that works, and I don't blame him one bit for trying. Because if I hadn't already thought that, it would be appropriate for him to make sure. I think the burden is on him, at this point, to say why they are the same, since I did not agree with his first approach. I also try that first, because I am not sure I am articulate enough at the moment to express it yet.

marshaul said:

See post #32.

Click to expand...

Oops, yep, missed that somehow. I will review now...

Just looking at the BOR arguments, what is the entire context of the "freedom to travel" bit? I admit I am not a Constitutional Law authority outside of my narrow scope.

PALO said:

I totally agree. And fwiw, you can drive on private property w.;o a license or insurance or a registered vehicle. At least in my state

Click to expand...

Except church parking lots in Virginia.