toolbox 0
Recommended Posts
Quote
We have banned driving through a red light
nice! -- I'll bet that solved some problems
Quote
I was commenting on the fact that you said that "that right doesn't infringe on your safety". I gave you several examples where it did, and you changed the subject.
-------------------------------------------------
Well Stumpy, what you listed, and all the similar examples listed by others (Quade, BillVon, etc) have no bearing whatsoever on rights. They DO have everything to do with idiots doing stupid stuff.
It's not unexpected that 'Mericans have turned to selfish definitions for "rights".
We simply do not have the right to prevent people from doing stupid stuff. All we can do is make laws that address the problems after the fact.
But then, we are being over-run with people who will eventually disembowel the Bill of Rights and we''ll ALL be screwed by whoever has "the power" at the time.
People seem tho think that you do not have the "right" to do anything that adversely affects them. That's the selfishness. It doesn't work that way. Don't think so? Ask yourself, "How many of the things I do during a normal day could possible adversely affect someone." How would you like living day to day being prevented from doing those things?
And please, guys get away from the individual examples and think in broader terms. Individual examples lead nowhere because for every one you come up with, somebody can come up with their own that counters.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Quote>As I am sure you are aware,people do not get the right to drive until they have taken (and passed) a test
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that is given to those who have earned it.
I could be wrong,but even at the state level,I do not believe it is a constitutional right.
Funny how many times people think driving is a right. Just like so many other activities. That thinking is a disease that cannot be cured.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Just how many people have been killed by tinted windows and glass packed mufflers?
Cops in some states feel that darkly tinted windows present a risk of being shot by criminals they pull over.
Cops in some states feel that darkly tinted windows present a risk of being shot by criminals they pull over.
billvon 2,400
>I'm pretty sure dark window tint is legal in some states like nevada
In Nevada, tinting cannot go below the AS-1 mark on the windshield. Tint must pass 35% of light.
>I recieved speeding tickets in this car and never once was the tint even mentioned by the officers.
Lucky guy.
In Nevada, tinting cannot go below the AS-1 mark on the windshield. Tint must pass 35% of light.
>I recieved speeding tickets in this car and never once was the tint even mentioned by the officers.
Lucky guy.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuote>As I am sure you are aware,people do not get the right to drive until they have taken (and passed) a test
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that is given to those who have earned it.
I could be wrong,but even at the state level,I do not believe it is a constitutional right.
Funny how many times people think driving is a right. Just like so many other activities. That thinking is a disease that cannot be cured.
Interesting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuote>As I am sure you are aware,people do not get the right to drive until they have taken (and passed) a test
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that is given to those who have earned it.
I could be wrong,but even at the state level,I do not believe it is a constitutional right.
Funny how many times people think driving is a right. Just like so many other activities. That thinking is a disease that cannot be cured.
Interesting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
Not all rights are explicitly listed in the Constitution (as amended).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
toolbox 0
In some states even side windows can't have dark tint.
Washington state is one of those states.
I think it is more about the cops being able to see illegal activity in the car while they pull along side on the highway.
If a violent criminal is hiding a gun ready to fire behind their leg or jacket,lack of tint is not going to be as much of an issue since they will most likely wait until the cop gets up to a side window,at which time the perp could bring the gun up and shoot through an open window or through the door itself for that matter and the officer would be unaware of the gun until the first shot,tint or no tint.
Washington state is one of those states.
I think it is more about the cops being able to see illegal activity in the car while they pull along side on the highway.
If a violent criminal is hiding a gun ready to fire behind their leg or jacket,lack of tint is not going to be as much of an issue since they will most likely wait until the cop gets up to a side window,at which time the perp could bring the gun up and shoot through an open window or through the door itself for that matter and the officer would be unaware of the gun until the first shot,tint or no tint.
jakee 1,255
QuoteInteresting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?
My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 2,400
>I think it is more about the cops being able to see illegal activity in the car while they
>pull along side on the highway.
Perhaps, although I question whether that's possible even with clear windows at night.
>pull along side on the highway.
Perhaps, although I question whether that's possible even with clear windows at night.
toolbox 0
I agree,it is hard to see into a car in bright sunlight if the angle is not right.
brenthutch 383
\QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>As I am sure you are aware,people do not get the right to drive until they have taken (and passed) a test
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that is given to those who have earned it.
I could be wrong,but even at the state level,I do not believe it is a constitutional right.
Funny how many times people think driving is a right. Just like so many other activities. That thinking is a disease that cannot be cured.
Interesting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
Not all rights are explicitly listed in the Constitution (as amended).
Rights are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, limits to government are explicitly listed.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuote>As I am sure you are aware,people do not get the right to drive until they have taken (and passed) a test
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that is given to those who have earned it.
I could be wrong,but even at the state level,I do not believe it is a constitutional right.
Funny how many times people think driving is a right. Just like so many other activities. That thinking is a disease that cannot be cured.
Exactly. Hence the whole false belief that you HAVE to buy auto insurance. The Gubment requires you to.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
QuoteQuoteInteresting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?
My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.
You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteInteresting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?
My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.
You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.
Of course, the downside to that is having to be surrounded by Texans.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteInteresting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?
My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.
You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.
Of course, the downside to that is having to be surrounded by Texans.
Yeah, or the thugs in Chicago.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteInteresting side-story on that very point. A few years ago I represented someone who was appealing the state govt's denial of her request to be exempt from having her photograph on her driver's license on religious grounds. We ultimately lost; but in the course of doing all the legal research for the appellate briefs - and I did a pretty exhaustive, nation-wide search for applicable cases - I did find that there is a small, but growing, minority of judges who find that view to be obsolete, feeling that driving a car in modern American society is such a necessity that in certain instances - subject to reasonable licensing, safety, etc. - it should be accorded nearly as much deference as a right. As I said, it's a minority view, but it is out there, embodied in some rather respectably-written modern court opinions.
As a non-American that was something I have been wondering about - my question being is that not what the 9th Amendment is for?
My thinking is the right to travel freely must be one of the lynchpins of a free society, in the modern world cars are the primary means of transport, therefore driving (as you say, subject to reasonable licencing) should be viewed as a right.
You should come to texas. If you dont have a car here you'll be walking for quite some time.
Of course, the downside to that is having to be surrounded by Texans.
Which of course includes libs like wendy. I'm sure she appreciates your insults.
I'm pretty sure dark window tint is legal in some states like nevada,and if it is not legal,they do not ticket you for it.
I lived in vegas for over 4 years and had tint so dark you could not see inside.
I recieved speeding tickets in this car and never once was the tint even mentioned by the officers. It seems if it were such a safety issue they would have said something eh?
Glasspack mufflers are more of a loud noise nuisance law rather than safety.
Hell, it would seem that loud exhaust would tend to make you more noticeable and therefore more safe if anything.
Loud music in the car on the other hand is a safety issue because you might not hear emergency vehicles sirens,or someones car horn,but I have never known glasspacks to be so loud as to drown out a siren on any streetable car.
But then the most I've ever pushed at the wheels is 425 HP and it was loud but not louder than the police siren.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites