Driving is Only a Privilege, but Bearing a Gun is a Right.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Seems rather odd doesn't it ?

For most of us in today's society, driving is essential for the pusuit of happiness while owning and/or bearing a gun is merely an option that most people don't even bother exercise.

If the US constitution were written today by the same founding fathers, don't you think that Americans would have the right to drive a vehicle ?

As for guns, I would suggest that they are as neccessary to an American citizen as an MP 3 player. I can't see a need to enshrine a right for either.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

If the US constitution were written today by the same founding fathers, don't you think that Americans would have the right to drive a vehicle ?

They didn't include the right to own/ride a horse or sail on a boat. Why would they view cars any differently?

As for guns, I would suggest that they are as neccessary to an American citizen as an MP 3 player. I can't see a need to enshrine a right for either.

The right exists as a safeguard against tyranny. Whether that is true or not an argument can certainly be made to that effect, and the writers believed that argument and stated quite clearly that this was why the right was necessary.

Can you really make a cogent argument that an MP3 players s provide some sort of safeguard against tyranny?

Ditto for driving. You might be able to argue that an ability to drive is needed by some members of a modern militia, but the vast majority of soldiers never need to drive. IOW it falls into the same category as reading and writing did when the constitution was framed. The fact that there is no enshrined right to literacy tells us the attitude towards that sort of argument.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Blake

Can you really make a cogent argument that an MP3 players s provide some sort of safeguard against tyranny?

Dude, most people can't last 2 minutes listening to my collection of thrash & death metal.

I could prolly repel a small invasion all by myself, as long as I had a decent PA.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Blake

Can you really make a cogent argument that an MP3 players s provide some sort of safeguard against tyranny?

Well, didn't loud music eventually drive Manuel Noriega into surrendering?

Anyway, I don't see anything "rather odd" about the OP's observation. At most, perhaps it's an oversight on the part of the framers that they didn't specifically protect freedom of movement within the country.

Canada, however, does. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section Six. Once again, I have license to be smug.

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by Blake

They didn't include the right to own/ride a horse or sail on a boat.

But no one in revolutionary era would have ever considered banning someone who legally owned a horse from riding it (I assume, if anyone knows of pre-modern era "driving-ban" style laws I'd like to hear about them).

And presumably likewise for "boats" (I could imagine the piloting of larger "ships" may have been regulated in certain circumstances.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Dude, most people can't last 2 minutes listening to my collection of thrash & death metal.

I could prolly repel a small invasion all by myself, as long as I had a decent PA.

Hey, they've actually used Slayer as a weapon in real military confrontations before.

[XT]

Seems rather odd doesn't it ?

Not really, no. Consider that the folks who framed the Constitution had just won a war against what was probably the most powerful empire in history, and they did so in part (initially at least) because of privately owned firearms. They considered armed citizen militia to be MUCH preferred to standing armies, which they saw as potentially oppressive.

For most of us in today's society, driving is essential for the pusuit of happiness while owning and/or bearing a gun is merely an option that most people don't even bother exercise.

Perhaps. If you think this is going to let you out of getting a drivers license though, you are sadly mistaken. Even with an explicit right in the 2nd Amendment a license is still required in many states to carry said firearm...and in some it's required just to own one.

If the US constitution were written today by the same founding fathers, don't you think that Americans would have the right to drive a vehicle ?

No...not particularly. I think that driving is a privilege. I don't think that any modern day FF are looking to enshrine your right to keep and drive a car, either.

As for guns, I would suggest that they are as neccessary to an American citizen as an MP 3 player. I can't see a need to enshrine a right for either.

Luckily you don't get to decide that, ehe? However, your suggestion has been noted and filed in the appropriate (round) receptacle...

-XT

[Blake]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

But no one in revolutionary era would have ever considered banning someone who legally owned a horse from riding it...

So it is odd that they didn't specifically prohibit something that was inconceivable?

I would think it rather more odd if they had managed to prohibit driving bans or in a world where such things would never have been considered..

[Llama Llogophile]

Interesting that the example of a boat or horse would come up, because I've been thinking that our rights to freedom of movement are becoming greatly eroded.

Whether it's tolls or hassles with TSA, the response usually seems to be, "Well you don't HAVE to drive on the interstate or fly on commercial airliners."

Well, what then? Drive from Maine to Florida via back roads?

I realize our infrastructure funds need to come from somewhere, but this sort of thing is beginning to bother me. And it worries me a lot more than gun rights.

[JXJohns]

You got feet? Use 'em. Anything more than that is a privilege.

[mswas]

There used to be a line in the New Mexico constitution about how a person couldn't be deprived of their primary mode of transportation. I don't know if that still exists.

There are many places in this nation where not being able to drive can actually render a person homeless.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

You got feet? Use 'em. Anything more than that is a privilege.

Pretty much my position. Provided that a passage exists that is navigable by foot or mule then you're freedom to travel is not restricted. You've got a right to pursue faster/more comfortable means of transport if that makes you happy, but I see no reason why your fellow taxpayers should have to provide it for free.

You want to travel on society's roads, you pay society's fees.

Now there are some exceptions to this when having a car becomes a necessity for life, not just happiness. And that necessity is often caused by poor planning on behalf of the state. So in some circumstances a car or public transport probably is a right.

But just because you choose to live in Maine and holiday in Florida? No way.

[The Second Stone]

You don't have a right to unlimited free speech in a public library or courtroom, all rights are qualified. You do have a constitutional right to travel among the states and that presumes using methods of transportation. Driving presumes that you are physically able to drive and have understanding of the rules of the road and how to safely drive. Assuming that you have a license and no prohibition and meet the other qualifications, you can sue in courts and be allowed to drive if for some reason you are not allowed. The garbage that is spewed forth about driving only being a privilege is wrong and a legal shorthand. In my opinion, worth as little as it is, a healthy law abiding citizen who can drive meets the qualifications for the right to drive.

I've represented a stroke victim who had her license revoked automatically as required in California. (I also re-taught her to drive after her stroke.) California has a test that is more difficult (according to the examiners) for rehabilitated stroke victims. We did appeals to allow her to take the test several times and we had rights to further appeals had she not passed one of the retests. Her driving skills were typical of people 70 or older.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Blake

Can you really make a cogent argument that an MP3 players s provide some sort of safeguard against tyranny?

The Flower People certainly thought so . Music in general, I mean, not MP3 players specifically. Music's a powerful inspiration tool - it's no wonder it's been used so often for propaganda purposes by tyrants. Why wouldn't it be an essential tool to fight against them ?

That said, and at the risk of derailing the thread, I wonder : you need a license to drive. Do you need a license to ride a horse alongside/on the road ? How about a horse-drawn vehicle ?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Why wouldn't [Music in general] be an essential tool to fight against them ?

The whole concept seems kinda silly and totally moot.

1) I suspect that many wars have been ought without any significant musical input.
2) Literacy has also been essential in most wars, but there's no right to literacy.
3) You already have a constitutionally guaranteed right to music.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

You got feet? Use 'em. Anything more than that is a privilege.

To apply that logic to the right to bear arms : "You got a sharp stick ? Use it; anything more is a privilege."

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

The Flower People certainly thought so . Music in general, I mean, not MP3 players specifically. Music's a powerful inspiration tool - it's no wonder it's been used so often for propaganda purposes by tyrants. Why wouldn't it be an essential tool to fight against them ?

It's actually interesting how many nations including our own have had harsh laws against music with heavy drum beats.

[UDS]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

But no one in revolutionary era would have ever considered banning someone who legally owned a horse from riding it (I assume, if anyone knows of pre-modern era "driving-ban" style laws I'd like to hear about them).

Since you ask . . .

From 1695, and continuing through most of the 18th century, Catholics in Ireland were (among other disabilities) forbidden to own a horse worth more than five pounds. (The stated purpose was not so much to prevent them from travelling as to keep them from owning horses suitable for military service. But the penal laws were also directed at keeping Catholics in an economically oppressed condition.)

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

To apply that logic to the right to bear arms : "You got a sharp stick ? Use it; anything more is a privilege."

That's exactly right.

People have a right to bear arms, but the the state doesn't buy people firearms or build them shooting ranges, they have to purchase those out of their own funds. If all you can afford is a sharp stick then all you get is a sharp stick. That doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.

People have a right to travel, but the state doesn't have to buy people cars or build them highways. They have to purchase those out of their own funds. If all you can afford is a pair of sneakers then all you get is a pair of sneakers. That doesn't infringe on travel.

A few people seem to think that having a right to do something means that the state has an obligation to assist you to do it. Uh uh. So long as the state doesn't actively prevent you from doing it then your rights aren't being infringed on.

The state doesn't have to buy you a car or a rifle, and it doesn't have to build you a shooting range or a highway. If it chooses to provide those things it can then charge you a fee to use them or make you sit a test to show you can use them safely.

So long as it doesn't prevent you obtaining a rifle and using it on a shooting range on your own land, or prevent you buying a car and driving it on a road on your own land there can't be even an implication that it's infringing on your rights.

[Kalhoun]

Owning a gun is a right until you fuck up with it or other aspects of your life. Then it's prohibited. Which I guess translates to...it's not a right.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

You got feet? Use 'em. Anything more than that is a privilege.

Fuck that. Explain how you find a job in rural Michigan by walking. Keep in mind it's a search of several counties.

If your answer is the ever retarded "move". Please elucidate, do you expect people to drag their belongs across several states by foot? How do you expect them to move without a job to finance moving? Do you expect them just to show up in a town as a hobbo? If so you're effectively telling them they have no right to not be a criminal due vagrancy laws.

In short that position is unreasonable, short sighted, and fascist ( in a real sense, not hyperbole). It gives all the rights to the State, and effectively says you have none.

[Stalky]

Maybe adding a right to access to information and information technology to the constitution would be a good idea.

They also act as a safegaurd against tyranny.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Owning a gun is a right until you fuck up with it or other aspects of your life. Then it's prohibited. Which I guess translates to...it's not a right.

Just like the fact that you can go to jail for filing a false police report means there is no right to free speech.

Methinks some confusion exists in this thread between rights that exist, rights that don't exist, and rights that are brought under the protection of the government. Not the same thing. The Ninth Amendment points this out.

Unenumerated rights may or may not exist, but the federal government has nothing to do with them, either to establish them or to deny them.

Regards,
Shodan

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Anyway, I don't see anything "rather odd" about the OP's observation. At most, perhaps it's an oversight on the part of the framers that they didn't specifically protect freedom of movement within the country.

Canada, however, does. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section Six. Once again, I have license to be smug.

I'm pretty sure the Fifth Amendment's statement that a person cannot be deprived of their liberty covers this.

As to the question... legally, driving is not a privilege.

Driving on a public road is a privilege.

Build a road on your own property and you can drive around it like a maniac with no license.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

To apply that logic to the right to bear arms : "You got a sharp stick ? Use it; anything more is a privilege."

Ahhh, but since sharps sticks aren't considered arms, and fireARMS are, and bearing same is a right affirmed by the Constitution, your point falls a bit flat. Nice try.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I'm pretty sure the Fifth Amendment's statement that a person cannot be deprived of their liberty covers this.

As to the question... legally, driving is not a privilege.

Driving on a public road is a privilege.

Build a road on your own property and you can drive around it like a maniac with no license.

There's no hard distinction between walking and driving with that rationalization. You're basically saying leaving your house is a privilege.

A person who has committed no crime deserve a right to not be under house arrest.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Fuck that. Explain how you find a job in rural Michigan by walking. Keep in mind it's a search of several counties.

If your answer is the ever retarded "move". Please elucidate, do you expect people to drag their belongs across several states by foot? How do you expect them to move without a job to finance moving? Do you expect them just to show up in a town as a hobbo? If so you're effectively telling them they have no right to not be a criminal due vagrancy laws.

In short that position is unreasonable, short sighted, and fascist ( in a real sense, not hyperbole).

You seem to think that I care. Somehow, some way, people in rural Michigan or my home state of Iowa managed to survive for several decades prior to the invention of the car. Simply put, there is no right to owning a car.

It gives all the rights to the State, and effectively says you have none.

And how is that any different than today? The DMV/DOT whatever determines who can or cannot drive by a set of fascist tests that they force upon their citizenry. Those bastards!

[Giles]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Fuck that. Explain how you find a job in rural Michigan by walking. Keep in mind it's a search of several counties.

If your answer is the ever retarded "move". Please elucidate, do you expect people to drag their belongs across several states by foot? How do you expect them to move without a job to finance moving? Do you expect them just to show up in a town as a hobbo? If so you're effectively telling them they have no right to not be a criminal due vagrancy laws.

In short that position is unreasonable, short sighted, and fascist ( in a real sense, not hyperbole). It gives all the rights to the State, and effectively says you have none.

How you finance your move to find a job is your business. The last time I moved to find a job, driving with my belongings would have been impractical (you can't get from Darwin to Singapore by road, and you can't get from Russia to Alaska by road). If you don't own a car, several possibilities exist:
(1) Sell all your goods at your old home, and buy some replacements at the new one.
(2) Hire a horse and cart for the journey.
(3) Pay someone else to take it in the back of their truck.

But the state doesn't have to finance any of that: it just lets you choose the cheapest and most convenient option.

And if you show up in a town with no possessions, but with a job and with enough money to support yourself, you won't be subject to vagrancy laws.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

At most, perhaps it's an oversight on the part of the framers that they didn't specifically protect freedom of movement within the country.

The Supreme Court has recognized a right to travel between states and has ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives state governments the power to protect freedom of movement.

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

Well, what then? Drive from Maine to Florida via back roads?

Yeah. What do you think people did before the Eisenhower system was created? What do you think Route 66 was all about?

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

You do have a constitutional right to travel among the states and that presumes using methods of transportation.

It doesn't presume anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Kobal2

The Flower People certainly thought so . Music in general, I mean, not MP3 players specifically. Music's a powerful inspiration tool - it's no wonder it's been used so often for propaganda purposes by tyrants. Why wouldn't it be an essential tool to fight against them ?

Once again, you carry the power to make music within your own physical body. Restricting the use of recorded music devices doesn't interfere with that.

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

There's no hard distinction between walking and driving with that rationalization. You're basically saying leaving your house is a privilege.

A person who has committed no crime deserve a right to not be under house arrest.

That's nonsense. You have the right to walk on public roads, except for restricted access highways that prohibit pedestrians.

[The Tao's Revenge]

(1) Sell all your goods at your old home, and buy some replacements at the new one.
(2) Hire a horse and cart for the journey.
(3) Pay someone else to take it in the back of their truck.

I saw no mention of using one's feet. Even the third one requires transport from store. All those required something beyond feet. Do you actually agree with me that you do need something beyond your feet? The post I was responding said anything beyond your feet is a privilige.


Could you have walked Singapore, or from Russia to Alaska? If not your travel required something beyond your feet.


Would it have been against your rights to deny your use of anything but your feet and keep you in Russia?

But the state doesn't have to finance any of that: it just lets you choose the cheapest and most convenient option.

Never said it did. Do you believe there isn't a freedom of the press because the state doesn't pay the costs of newspapers?


I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other.

And if you show up in a town with no possessions, but with a job and with enough money to support yourself, you won't be subject to vagrancy laws.

If you can't get a job to make the money to show up with are you supposed to do? "that's your problem" is a cowardly dodge. Are people just supposed to pull moey out of thin air?

Originally Posted by JXJohns

You seem to think that I care.

Ahh they classic "they can fuck off and die". Good to see your concern for other people. Do you an argument that isn't sociopathic?

Somehow, some way, people in rural Michigan or my home state of Iowa managed to survive for several decades prior to the invention of the car. Simply put, there is no right to owning a car.

Really? People in Iowa only used their feet? They didn't even use horses? People in Iowa must have been really stupid not to get horses before cars existed.

Did you even read your own assertion?

And how is that any different than today? The DMV/DOT whatever determines who can or cannot drive by a set of fascist tests that they force upon their citizenry. Those bastards!

Your assertion is anything beyond your feet is a privilege. If the argument is the state doesn't have to pay for a car and gas that's fine. I can get behind that.

However saying that proves driving isn't a right is saying free speech is privilege not a right, since the state won't pay for you to be published. Do you assert people don't have a right to free speech?

Do people not have a right to bare arms since there's gun tests?

Yes it's Fascist. People are using the "privilege" argument as a justification for revocation of 4th amendment rights of drivers. If they can revoke that right what else can they revoke? It's insidious and taking a piss on the grave of every American who died believing they were fighting for freedom.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by acsenray

That's nonsense. You have the right to walk on public roads, except for restricted access highways that prohibit pedestrians.

So walking is only right where they let me, otherwise it isn't? Doesn't sound like much of a right.

However I can see argument for safety rights over ruling pedastrian rights so I'll agree it is a right.

Now answer me this. What's the difference between foot power and car power? Why is one a privilege, that you waive 4th amendments rights to use, and the other right?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Show me where this says anything about a right to drive a car or where any competent court has found such a right. I believe that even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to travel is a right guaranteed by states, not by the U.S. Constitution. The only right you have is that you can't be barred from traveling from one state to another. That has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to drive a car.

Now answer me this. What's the difference between foot power and car power? Why is one a privilege, that you waive 4th amendments rights to use, and the other right?

You don't need to drive a car to travel. Period. You can walk. You can hire someone else to drive you (bus, train, coach, taxi, limo, etc.). There are even some places where some organizations offer free transportation assistance.

Your being able to drive a car yourself is simply not a right recognized by any authority.

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

There's no hard distinction between walking and driving with that rationalization. You're basically saying leaving your house is a privilege.

A person who has committed no crime deserve a right to not be under house arrest.

You and I are already on this subject in the other thread, and I think you're being seriously overdramatic with the "house arrest" idea. No one is saying you can't leave your home. Walk, ride a bicycle, ride a horse, get a ride from a friend, take a bus, take a taxi, rollerskate, ride a camel, climb into a shopping cart and push yourself along with a mop handle if you feel like it, and go where you please. "Not driving" doesn't equal "housebound".

As noted above, "driving" itself is not restricted. Build your own road, on your own property, and you can drive on it to your heart's content. What the government does regulate, and what we are telling you is a privilege, is driving a motor vehicle on public roads. The reason for the regulation is that the public roads are for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in keeping the citizens who travel upon the roads safe. To that end, people who drive on public roads are required, prior to driving, to meet certain requirements and accept certain responsibilities. If you do not accept that, you cannot drive upon the roads, but you may still travel upon them if you slide over and let someone who does accept those conditions do the driving.

A public roadway is not yours, and therefore you can be told what you can and cannot do on that roadway. It is valid, it is legal, it is morally just, it is socially responsible, and it makes perfect sense.

Now, on to your "waive your 4th amendment rights" claim: when you obtain a driver's license, you are agreeing that the State may request a breath sample from you. They won't turn your whole car over looking for marijuana seeds, they won't even pat you down. You're only asked to blow into a tube. Now, if you are pulled over, you are expected to give a breath sample. If you refuse, your license is suspended. That's the only statutory consequence of the refusal. You have a privilege to drive on public roads, granted by the owner of those roads, on condition that you submit to a breath test; if you break the condition, you lose the privilege. Simple as that.

If you can explain what Constitutionally-compelling privacy interest you have in the alcohol content of your breath, I'd like to hear it. You have the right to be secure in your person, your papers, your effects, and your home, certainly, but not in the odors wafting from your pie-hole.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

You and I are already on this subject in the other thread, and I think you're being seriously overdramatic with the "house arrest" idea. No one is saying you can't leave your home. Walk, ride a bicycle, ride a horse, get a ride from a friend, take a bus, take a taxi, rollerskate, ride a camel, climb into a shopping cart and push yourself along with a mop handle if you feel like it, and go where you please. "Not driving" doesn't equal "housebound".

As noted above, "driving" itself is not restricted. Build your own road, on your own property, and you can drive on it to your heart's content. What the government does regulate, and what we are telling you is a privilege, is driving a motor vehicle on public roads. The reason for the regulation is that the public roads are for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in keeping the citizens who travel upon the roads safe.

Okay I'm willing to accept that idea but this where we disagree I think.

To that end, people who drive on public roads are required, prior to driving, to meet certain requirements and accept certain responsibilities. If you do not accept that, you cannot drive upon the roads, but you may still travel upon them if you slide over and let someone who does accept those conditions do the driving.

So in order for a car to be driven someone must waive their 4th amendment rights?

A public roadway is not yours, and therefore you can be told what you can and cannot do on that roadway. It is valid, it is legal, it is morally just, it is socially responsible, and it makes perfect sense.

Not just when those laws of the road require you to waive rights your society holds to be inalienable.

[quote[Now, on to your "waive your 4th amendment rights" claim: when you obtain a driver's license, you are agreeing that the State may request a breath sample from you. [/quote]

No I'm fucking not. I never signed such a paper. I never made such an agreement. Could the state consider my license an assumed agreement not criticize the president and take it away?

Remember when the government felt "it embolden the terrorists" so there was a (retarded) safety argument against free speech.

Could the state decide they want me to waive other Guaranteed Rights as well? What's to stop the state from saying you can't drive if you want to a write a piece critical of the government?

They won't turn your whole car over looking for marijuana seeds, they won't even pat you down. You're only asked to blow into a tube. Now, if you are pulled over, you are expected to give a breath sample. If you refuse, your license is suspended. That's the only statutory consequence of the refusal. You have a privilege to drive on public roads, granted by the owner of those roads, on condition that you submit to a breath test; if you break the condition, you lose the privilege. Simple as that.

That tube is an invasion of my rights. Blowing in it is taking a piss on the grave of anyone who died for liberty.

You say they're not asking to search my car, but what's to stop them from deciding to in the future? How many rights must I sacrifice for a license and how would I get by in modern society without one? inb4 "fuck you your problem, I don't care". Personal mobility is highly dependent on being able to drive in most of the country.

What's the limiter? You never answered that question.

If you can explain what Constitutionally-compelling privacy interest you have in the alcohol content of your breath, I'd like to hear it.

"if I don't have anything to hide" eh? It's my body. Isn't that enough?

You have the right to be secure in your person, your papers, your effects, and your home, certainly, but not in the odors wafting from your pie-hole.

My mouth, and the air in my lungs, doesn't count as part my person? Are you sure you actually read that?


Could the cops demand I vomit in a bag to keep my license too?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Show me where this says anything about a right to drive a car or where any competent court has found such a right. I believe that even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to travel is a right guaranteed by states, not by the U.S. Constitution. The only right you have is that you can't be barred from traveling from one state to another. That has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to drive a car.

Interesting. So The states can put you under house arrest for whatever reason they wish? Even if you break no law?

Pretty fucked up.

You don't need to drive a car to travel. Period. You can walk. You can hire someone else to drive you (bus, train, coach, taxi, limo, etc.).

We didn't have any public transportation here till 2005. I suppose walk is an option but if you going to submit expecting someone to walk 20-30 miles a day is reasonable then you're fucking retarded.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Interesting. So The states can put you under house arrest for whatever reason they wish? Even if you break no law?

Pretty fucked up.

The idea that not being allowed to drive is the equivalent of house arrest will be laughed at by any court. There are plenty of people in this country who get by just fine without driving themselves.

We didn't have any public transportation here till 2005.

Do you know people who have cars? Will anyone do you a favor? Is there anyone who will accept payment in exchange for driving you? Are there people willing to enter into a carpooling club? I know people who depended for years on a friend to drive them to work every day.

I suppose walk is an option but if you going to submit expecting someone to walk 20-30 miles a day is reasonable

Such walking was quite routine a very short time ago. In any case, you have the option of living closer to the places you want to go. People make these kinds of choices every day.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by acsenray

The idea that not being allowed to drive is the equivalent of house arrest will be laughed at by any court. There are plenty of people in this country who get by just fine without driving themselves.

You said travel, not driving. Travel includes walking.

Do you know people who have cars? Will anyone do you a favor? Is there anyone who will accept payment in exchange for driving you? Are there people willing to enter into a carpooling club? I know people who depended for years on a friend to drive them to work every day.

I am the guy with a car in my group of friends. When it broke down last fall every body was screwed. I know two people with a car I'd be comfortable asking. 1 is usually busy, one would send me to the poor house for "gas money". 10 miles for $15.

We do have public transportation here now, but it's recent. It's actually a refreshing change. The issue that concerns me is not everyone is so lucky, or has people they can depend on.

Such walking was quite routine a very short time ago. In any case, you have the option of living closer to the places you want to go. People make these kinds of choices every day.

Times change quick too. It's impossible to meet the obligations of a modern life when a quick trip into town takes half the day.

I understand people have the option of moving, but can't you agree there's situations where moving isn't a practical option?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

You said travel, not driving. Travel includes walking.

What are you talking about? You're only under "arrest" if the state actually bars you from leaving a particular place. You have to show that you are actually unable leave your house because of state action before you have any kind of valid argument.

When it broke down last fall every body was screwed. I know two people with a car I'd be comfortable asking. 1 is usually busy, one would send me to the poor house for "gas money". 10 miles for $15.

...

I understand people have the option of moving, but can't you agree there's situations where moving isn't a practical option?

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you a general right not to be screwed.

If you want to argue that we need to amend the Constitution to guarantee a right to drive, then go ahead.

But your argument under the law as is stands is a loser.

[The Tao's Revenge]

[quote=acsenray;11214397]What are you talking about? You're only under "arrest" if the state actually bars you from leaving a particular place. You have to show that you are actually unable leave your house because of state action before you have any kind of valid argument.

Originally Posted by you

I believe that even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to travel is a right guaranteed by states, not by the U.S. Constitution.

The logical extrapolation of that is the state could change it's mind and put you under house arrest and there's nothing you do, unless you wanted to go a different state I guess.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you a general right not to be screwed.

I love that quote, and I agree with it.

Is the Constitution the source of all rights though? You make your argument on legal authority, and by legal authority alone you are correct in that assertion.

However is the Constitution the sole final authority of inalienable rights? Are there ones beyond it? I'd like to think there's a right to reasonably procure the necessities of life and happiness.

But this is GD not IMHO. So I'll let it go.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

The logical extrapolation of that is the state could change it's mind and put you under house arrest and there's nothing you do, unless you wanted to go a different state I guess.

No it's not. If you are genuinely under arrest then you have a right to challenge your confinement. If your theory is that "I'm saying that I'm under house arrest just because they won't let me drive," then you're going to get kicked out of court as a crackpot.

Is the Constitution the source of all rights though? You make your argument on legal authority, and by legal authority alone you are correct in that assertion.

However is the Constitution the sole final authority of inalienable rights? Are there ones beyond it? I'd like to think there's a right to reasonably procure the necessities of life and happiness.

How else do you expect to assert rights against the government except through the law? Any discussion regarding the limits of government power is by definition a discussion of law. The law is our societal mechanism for settling disputes, particularly with respect to government action.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Ahh they classic "they can fuck off and die". Good to see your concern for other people. Do you an argument that isn't sociopathic?

No, what I don't care about is your hypotheticals. People survived for eons without cars and continue to do so today. While I agree that the right of free travel is guaranteed, the mode in which one chooses to travel = not so much.

So far, you've called me or my opinions retarded, fascist, short sighted, and sociopathic simply because we disagree. You must be a fucking riot at a party.

Your assertion is anything beyond your feet is a privilege. If the argument is the state doesn't have to pay for a car and gas that's fine. I can get behind that.

However saying that proves driving isn't a right is saying free speech is privilege not a right, since the state won't pay for you to be published. Do you assert people don't have a right to free speech?

No it doesn't. The freedom of speech is a right. The ability to be published is not. It too, is a privilege. Cars, the internet, publishing houses, etc. are all vehicles in which we can apply those rights. Without them, our rights still exist and can be manipulated on their own without any external devices.

The Second amendment clearly requires an object (arms) so that it can be applied similarly. The right to bear arms means nothing with out arms. The right to free speech does not need anything other than a person and an idea.

[thirdname]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

No, what I don't care about is your hypotheticals. People survived for eons without cars and continue to do so today. While I agree that the right of free travel is guaranteed, the mode in which one chooses to travel = not so much.

So if I'm not allowed to drive a car on the road, I assume it's alright if I take my horse?

Many people do not live in walking distance of a grocery store. When people didn't have cars, they either lived within walking or riding distance of the places they needed to get to, or they lived in the wilderness where they could be self-sufficient. Those things aren't possible anymore for most people.

[Acsenray]

This assertion is undermined by the fact of millions of people living in this country right now who manage to live without driving.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by riker1384

So if I'm not allowed to drive a car on the road, I assume it's alright if I take my horse?

Many people do not live in walking distance of a grocery store. When people didn't have cars, they either lived within walking or riding distance of the places they needed to get to, or they lived in the wilderness where they could be self-sufficient. Those things aren't possible anymore for most people.

It is up to your local powers that be if you can take a horse to the store. I don't care either way. I bet however if you dig deep in your city code there may be a prohibition or two against equine mobility in city limits.

I realize that life would be tough without a car, I drive to work every day. That certainly does not make it a right to have one though.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by acsenray

This assertion is undermined by the fact of millions of people living in this country right now who manage to live without driving.

Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

Interesting that the example of a boat or horse would come up, because I've been thinking that our rights to freedom of movement are becoming greatly eroded.

Whether it's tolls or hassles with TSA, the response usually seems to be, "Well you don't HAVE to drive on the interstate or fly on commercial airliners."

Well, what then? Drive from Maine to Florida via back roads?

I realize our infrastructure funds need to come from somewhere, but this sort of thing is beginning to bother me. And it worries me a lot more than gun rights.

Me too. I have real problems when it comes down to someone deciding for me, what I need or don't need. It shows me that the person has no idea whatsoever, about the Constitution, the FF, or much of our history. The constitution and law tells us what specific things will be limited, controlled, or forbidden. The constitution also says what rights are guaranteed. There is also some verbage about other inalienable, inherent, not to be disparaged etc rights. We do not have to have EVERY thing in life specifically listed as "approved" before we can do it. Some times, we will "trade" a small bit of freedom for safety, efficiency, or security. We allow oursleves to go through the metal detectors and put our baggage through the X ray at airports. We are surrendering that "little bit of whatever it is" for safety reasons. We can still travel. we can find alternate ways, if it bothers us too much.


However, whenever the argument turns to "you don't need it", or "if you have nothing to hide", or "you can't do that unless the law plainly says you can" or anything remotely like that, it says the person speaking has no idea in the world what the bill of rights means, what any of the constitution means, or what the freedom to live free from undue control and interference means. Hell, they don't know anything at all about freedom. I guess anyone who feels OK with only having the freedoms or rights the government sees fit to allow, would feel peachy keen in a goold old police state.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

There's no hard distinction between walking and driving with that rationalization. You're basically saying leaving your house is a privilege.
.

Since you replied to me, I'll respond; no, I'm not basically saying that.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite.

New york has public transport. Plus, there are lots of homeless people that presumably don't have cars - "living" isn't the same as "living well".


(Of course he could instead be referring to all the children under 15 years old...but I doubt it.)

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Quoting: "In 2000, 88% of the driving age population was licensed to drive a motor vehicle." Using their figure of 190,625,023 licensed drivers, that means there were approximately 25,994,321 people in America who were of driving age who didn't have a license.

[thirdname]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

It is up to your local powers that be if you can take a horse to the store. I don't care either way. I bet however if you dig deep in your city code there may be a prohibition or two against equine mobility in city limits.

You're right, I can't ride a horse. I was replying to whoever said that people used to get around fine without cars. If the state completely surrounds my house with paved roads and then bans me from riding my horse on those roads, they either have to let me drive a car or they're violating my rights to travel freely.

The fact is that modern life is impossible in most of America if a person doesn't live in a city or a college campus, does not have a car, does not have someone else who will drive them around, and isn't wealthy enough to use taxis every day.

It is argued above that submitting to a breathalyzer test was not a violation of a person's rights because they "agree" to it in order to drive. That is not a real choice. Even if some people could get by without driving, they'd be relying on other drivers who have to submit to that. If nobody drove, our society would collapse. If you hold that anything a driver agrees to in order to get a license is a voluntary agreement and has nothing to do with their rights, they could just as easily require drivers to submit to random searches of the whole car, or anything else. Most people would "voluntarily" give their right to vote if they had to in order to keep driving.