Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Need a licence to drive?

  1. #1
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098

    Need a licence to drive?

    So... A little off topic, however I saw this and I had to re-read it. Are our lawmakers saying that driving a motor vehicle is a basic human right? Why in the hell do we licence drivers then? etc, etc...

    “The prohibition on women driving motor vehicles, even in cases of emergency, makes it impossible for citizens to exercise a basic human right,” wrote Senator Barbara Boxer of California


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...men-drive.html

    Carry on.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    No, it's only a "basic human right" in countries that are not the USA and where folks that are not US citizens are bring "repressed"* by regiems we are otherwise friendly with because we keep telling everybody we don't need their oil.

    stay safe.

    *Bonus points to te first person who DOES NOT put up the link to that quote.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    follow the money

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    And in other news, the lackey/quisling government of Iraq, installed by the fed gov, is far more respectful of its citizens' exercising their innate right to armed self-defense with the weapons of their choosing than any state in this "Union" (although to be fair, they do require those weapons to be registered).

    To my mind, the government is guilty of treason against its own citizens (you know, those of us who actually pay for this insane adventurism in foreign countries).

  5. #5
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    That's just Barbara Boxer spreading agitprop in the supposed 'friendly' nation in the Arab world ... can you say 'formenting rebellion'?

    The question is whether the Occupant sent her over there with that agenda, or is it her very own?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Driving is not a human right. Travel is a natural right.

    Denying a segment of the population the privilege of driving on the public byways based on their sex, while extending that privilege to the remaining population makes the exercise of the right of travel unjustifiably more difficult for that segment. Were no one allowed to drive or were the same licensing requirements applied to all, the right to travel would not be violated for anyone.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The ONLY reason that driving isnt a constitutional right, is because they didnt have cars and the necessity to travel in order to function at the time the constitution was written.

    Try having a successful life without a car, good luck.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Driving is not a human right. Travel is a natural right.
    Says who?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Says who?
    Let me reply to that as though it were the more mature, "Based on what do you make that assertion?" as opposed to the elementary-school retort, "Says who?"

    Natural rights are, by definition, rights which we have by the nature of being persons. They preexist governments and they preexist technology. Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.
    ____________

    BTW, if you are going to quote my posts in other than their entirety, honesty demands that you indicate that you edited my words. You left out a material part of my post without using elipses or snip tags or any other device for honest editing. While I contended that driving is not a natural right, I did specify why denying the privilege of driving to women constitutes a violation of rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Let me reply to that as though it were the more mature, "Based on what do you make that assertion?" as opposed to the elementary-school retort, "Says who?"
    That's cute.

    Natural rights are, by definition, rights which we have by the nature of being persons. They preexist governments and they preexist technology. Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.
    Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    That's cute.
    Ah, another juvenile retort. Let me try one more time to have an adult conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.
    And, as I have stated many times before, you have a natural right to self-defense. You do not have a natural right to any technology in that defense. In the US, we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense. The founders wisely believed that such might be necessary, in order to allow the people to remain in charge of the government--even if it went rogue and tried to oppress the populace using its armed resources.

    As long as the regulation of the use of any technology (even technology that is used in the exercise of natural rights) is based on a compelling governmental interest and does not unduly impede the exercise of a natural right, that regulation is reasonable and violates no right.

    In the US, requiring training and proof of competency before someone is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public byways is reasonable because the government has a compelling interest in increasing the safety of those who use the byways and because anyone with anywhere near normal capabilities can obtain a license. The regulation in other countries that prohibits women from driving is unreasonable (and, therefore, a violation of the natural right to travel) because it is not based on a compelling interest.

    That being said, I don't care. It is up to the people of those nations to take back their rights. If they won't, then they are tacitly accepting the status quo--which is their right (a natural one).

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    And, as I have stated many times before, you have a natural right to self-defense. You do not have a natural right to any technology in that defense. In the US, we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense. The founders wisely believed that such might be necessary, in order to allow the people to remain in charge of the government--even if it went rogue and tried to oppress the populace using its armed resources.

    As long as the regulation of the use of any technology (even technology that is used in the exercise of natural rights) is based on a compelling governmental interest and does not unduly impede the exercise of a natural right, that regulation is reasonable and violates no right.

    In the US, requiring training and proof of competency before someone is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public byways is reasonable because the government has a compelling interest in increasing the safety of those who use the byways and because anyone with anywhere near normal capabilities can obtain a license. The regulation in other countries that prohibits women from driving is unreasonable (and, therefore, a violation of the natural right to travel) because it is not based on a compelling interest.

    That being said, I don't care. It is up to the people of those nations to take back their rights. If they won't, then they are tacitly accepting the status quo--which is their right (a natural one).
    OK Hobbes; take your naked statism elsewhere. I really don't know why you post on this forum. It appears that you would be perfectly happy for the government to regulate every aspect of your life right down to the color of socks on your feet, because, after all, you don't have a natural right to dress the way you choose because clothing wasn't around when we came out of the trees. Insane.

    Newsflash: the only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The only legitimate crimes, in a natural state, are those acts which unjustly damage life, liberty and property. Any government attempt to criminalize behavior that doesn't fall within that category is unjustifiable.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 07-29-2011 at 12:48 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    OK Hobbes; take your naked statism elsewhere.
    As rational discussion with you has once again proved impossible, I shall return you to the ignore list.

    I will be happy to discuss what I wrote with anyone who wants to do so on a rational level, but I am done with you. You ain't worth the time and effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jay in Federalist #2
    Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
    Good government is limited--strictly. However, it is not government at all if is has not, by the consent of the people, vested with some power. I think our Founders created the perfect mix of highly limited governmental authority and near-unlimited rights of the people. Unfortunately we have strayed from that model, endowing the government with more power than the Founders intended. Driver's licenses aren't such an overstep. In fact they are a wonderful example of reasonable power with which to endow government. They are a near perfect example of the necessity of government!

    But, licenses must be made available to all adults who can prove competency at operation of a motor vehicle or the government is being unreasonable and overstepping.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    As rational discussion with you has once again proved impossible, I shall return you to the ignore list.
    Aw, shucks...it's tough when someone calls you out on the carpet, huh?

    Driver's licenses aren't such an overstep. In fact they are a wonderful example of reasonable power with which to endow government. They are a near perfect example of the necessity of government!
    BWAHAHAHAHA

    It would be entertaining if it weren't so sad. You are definitely the enemy within. Enjoy your chains, slave.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 07-29-2011 at 01:01 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post



    Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.
    Correct.

  17. #17
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Since travel has, since the beginning of time, been accomplished without technology and continues to be accomplished today without technology by those who choose to do so, it conforms to the preextant facet of the definition. Driving, on the other hand, requires technology and is, therefore, not a natural right.
    .
    I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

    At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

    I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

    At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

    I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.
    You can build and drive all the motor vehicles you want on your property and drive them around on your property. The instant you take one onto a public byway with the millions of other cars, many being operated at high speeds, the government has a compelling interest in regulating that activity.

    Years ago, there would have been no compelling interest. There clearly is today.

    However, there was an ad from an insurance company some years ago that stated, "In 190x, there were two cars in the entire state of Ohio. They collided."

  19. #19
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    However, there was an ad from an insurance company some years ago that stated, "In 190x, there were two cars in the entire state of Ohio. They collided."

    You know when the first car race ensued? When the second ever automobile rolled out of the factory.

  20. #20
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    And, actually it is the State that regulates drivers licensing, not the Feds.

    Since it is the pervue of the State, then it is excluded from the Feds ...
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I like you and all, but I think you forget that people build their own motor vehicles.. Of course not everyone does this, but how would the government have a hand in that?

    At any rate, beyond the simple, does our government have the power to give us "permits" to drive..

    I was hoping to see discussion of.. How can someone in our own government attempt to push something as a right in a foreign land, when our own land doesn't recognize it as a right in itself. The hypocritical statements and attitudes astound me, especially coming from someone who tramples the rights of their own people.
    Do they have the power to "give us permits to drive?" Sure they can give us whatever we ask, accept and allow them to force feed us. Do they have the ability to enforce and require...well that's a different issue. The simple answer is no...but it's more complicated than that. They will attempt to accuse and pass judgement on you for violations of those rules, while bending and ignoring them at the same time. But in the end they are just rules. If you don't believe that then look them up in one of them big fancy books they print them in. Does it say Law on the cover? No it doesn't, it says penal code, statute, act etc. There are bigger issues of real law that come into play with the enforcement. Remember that old slogan...Just Say No. Those are some powerful words if used correctly.

    How do they....they just do. Because they see it fitting their agenda. It also happens because of the ignorance of much of the populace that don't know and comprehend how Law works.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Driving is not a human right. Travel is a natural right.

    Denying a segment of the population the privilege of driving on the public byways based on their sex, while extending that privilege to the remaining population makes the exercise of the right of travel unjustifiably more difficult for that segment. Were no one allowed to drive or were the same licensing requirements applied to all, the right to travel would not be violated for anyone.
    So glad your beginning to understand:
    As well as traveling, by your own personal choice of means is also a Right that shouldn't be regulated, which turns a Right into a privilege for a specific few. Traveling is a natural God\creator given Right that can't be taken away. One can't realistically travel to a particular destination without using the public right of ways, and avoid private property. So one has the Right to travel uninhibited by any normal means they choose over the public roadways.
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 07-29-2011 at 08:57 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    the government has a compelling interest in regulating that activity.
    Yeah, money.

    If they gave a rats @$$ about you and your safety, they would re legalise pot, ban alcohol and cigs, and issue guns to everyone who could safely use one.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Yeah, money.

    If they gave a rats @$$ about you and your safety, they would re legalise pot, ban alcohol and cigs, and issue guns to everyone who could safely use one.
    Couldn't have said it better myself!

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    ...So glad your beginning to understand: ...
    Please do not imply that I am moving one iota in the direction of your irrational (IMO) point of view on the privilege of driving. I am not. I find your posts on the subject to be both dangerous and reprehensible.

    On edit: If you wonder why I am being harsh, read what this poster has written on the subject. Someday someone will assume that his conclusions on the subject have some legal merit--and spend some time in jail as a result, hence the spot-on words "dangerous" and "reprehensible."
    Last edited by eye95; 07-30-2011 at 09:04 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Please do not imply that I am moving one iota in the direction of your irrational (IMO) point of view on the privilege of driving. I am not. I find your posts on the subject to be both dangerous and reprehensible.
    Hyperbole much? LOL

    It's amazing how so many people never grow out of the phase of needing a parent to wipe their rear end, set their curfew, and list their chores. Even more amazing is that they choose government to fulfill that role.

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
  •