SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I would invite you to go to law school with what's his name. Then we can talk intelligently. Take a philosophy class too. Otherwise I'm done.
I hate when people quote inside my quotes.
Would you PLEASE read what I say with out any bias. I was talking about OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE. When did I say I "have no problem being licensed to carry a firearm out in public on a public street or sidewalk"? I have said I comply with the LTCH because it's not worth the lost opportunity cost not to. That doesn't mean I have no problem. It means it's not worth going to prison for. You obviously have strong feelings that the LTCH is an infringment of your rights. Do you set your principles aside and get an LTCH?
Operating a vehicle, traveling in a vehicle, if you're going to nitpick I'm not going to try to converse with you again on this subject. AND I'm not the one being biased here. I'm calling it like i see it. You said you don't have a problem being required to carry a LTCH because you don't mind being required to have a DL.
Licensing is not an onerous restriction of any right since such rights do not exist. It is a required step in the process to securing the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
You posted that, right? You don't see that driving a car is a right, when in fact, it is. Travel, by any means that you control, is a right. You have no problem saying that driving is a privilege but some people see carrying a pistol as a privilege. You don't have to have a license for a bicycle, or a horse, or a 49cc moped, but you do for a car or truck. Licenses don't prevent deaths, they're only there for money. $17 + TAX x 300 million is a lot of money.
That's not what I said. No license is required to travel in any vehicle of any size. To OPERATE a 2000lb vehicle is a privilege predicated by receiving a license to do so. Is that not in fact the truth?
See? Nit picking. Your question may be truth, but it is a right that was taken from us long ago and people like you accept it and call it privilege. It is not. I own that vehicle outright so I have a RIGHT to drive it anywhere I please unless I'm violating someone's rights. Is my driving down the Highway violating your rights? I didn't say erratically or dangerously, but just DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.
I didn't ignore it. I said the the people through their representative rejected it and demanded licensing. The political process was followed. Is that not in fact the truth?
So because people are willing to violate other people's rights, you're willing to go along with that? The political process was NOT followed because people decided to violate another person's rights.
I'm not arguing for or against laws that have been passed. My personal opinion is that driving is a privilege, not a right. This based more on the current state of the law than anything else. If a law were passed tomorrow that made it a right I would be OK with that.
So you are basing your [strike]infringements[/strike] beliefs on the current state of law instead of on what is right and wrong? So if a law were creating and passed tomorrow saying that it is a privilege to own property in general you would be ok with that because the Majority is ok with it? They call this system a Democracy, which fortunately we don't live with.
I haven't commented on the efficacy of licensing because I don't have any idea how effective licensing is. I endeavor to not make wild unsubstantiated statements.
I believe I can help you with this. Just as LTCHs don't stop criminals from killing people with guns, DLs don't stop people from killing other people. The whole license scheme is just that. A scheme. Worse, it's a direct infringement. Not only does it tell me I can't travel by means under my control without permission, it also makes my property (a vehicle) completely useless. Can you imagine what would happen if they required you to be licensed to own a home? It's not a right to own a house, so why not require a license to do so. Oh wait, it's just a tax. Property tax. So you really never own anything.
And now on to the second part....
How the hell do you get that I am defending anything? I described the current state. Reality. The truth. That is not defending anything.
You are defending the 16th by calling it Constitutional. Theft is NOT Constitutional which means the 16th is not either.
And?
This is WHY the 16th came about and another reason WHY it is unConstitutional. To fund a government that had grown beyond it's legal means.
Again, how what have I said that gives you any impression I am defending anything? How much is too much? A fraction of the government intrusion we have now is still too much. How much control am I willing to have? Enough that I am willing to say screw it and do something about it. I'm nowhere near that point yet. It's a Zen thing. They can control things in my life, but they control me only to the extent I allow them to. I let a lot roll off and hit the ground as I walk away never looking back.
I didn't ask how much control YOU were willing to have. I asked how much control are you willing to GIVE THEM? So far you're willing to give them over half your income and to register your property, be licensed to used your property, and to never truly own your property.
It's like the TSA thing. I am unwilling to comply with the naked pictures or the groping. I'm voting with my feet. My choice is to not fly. If I have to fly I'll charter. If I have to travel internationally I'll fly out of Toronto where they don't have those silly rules. There's always a way around everything.
So there's a way around a DL? A LTCH? Property and Income Tax? Sure. If you're willing to give up EVERYTHING. So, if you value your life, no, there's NOT a way around everything.
BS. That is a load of . If it is in the Constitution it is by definition Constitutional. You may not like it. I don't like it. I didn't vote for it. I didn't for the guy who voted for it. But to say something is not Constitutional when it is in the Constitution is so void of logic and a grasp of reality I can't even respond to statements like that anymore.
I'm sorry you have problems grasping reality. But it is reality. Income Tax is THEFT of your PROPERTY. The Founding Fathers warned against this. There was a REASON they didn't put this in the Constitution. Just as there was a REASON they put in the Constitution that half of Congress would be elected by STATE Legislature and not the PEOPLE. If you can't grasp that Income Tax is THEFT and a violation of our right, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL then we really are done here. That would be you DEFENDING the Income Tax as Constitutional. It is not.
So since it's an infringment do you exercise your right and opt out of compliance, or sacrificing your principles do you have a driver's license, license plates, insurance, and everything else you may believe infringes your rights? That's a rhetorical question. I don't expect a response.
Just because I spew a fact doesn't mean I support it. Please keep this in mind.
Well I'm responding anyway because you assume too much. As I stated in my original post, I am only one man and cannot change the law or the mind of millions. Millions of complacent, brain washed people who have no interest in the rights of others at the expense of the beliefs of a few.
Also keep in mind that defending something illegal or that violates the rights of others IS supporting that something. You may not agree with it, but you are, in fact, defending it.
(See? I can nitpick too!)