Are speed limits an infringement of our rights?

[Rob377]

Thanks, but I still recommend there or ORP (aka IRP) to anyone looking for a rush and wanting to hang it on the edge on two wheels. Get it somewhere that you have a better chance if you hit the hard top.

That's always my advice as well. I've had more than a few unintentional dismounts on the track. Walked away from all of them. On the street, not so much.

 

[UncleMike]

Been waiting for this example.

You pay the taxes, you built the aircraft carrier, you don't have a right to even get on it. You may be granted the privilege though.

What???
Wait.........
You mean I can't just go to Norfolk and walk onto one of those??
DAMMIT!!!
I want my money back!!

 

[Suprtek]

Been waiting for this example.

You pay the taxes, you built the aircraft carrier, you don't have a right to even get on it. You may be granted the privilege though.

I'm starting to think this whole "right" vs "privilege" discussion is all just a matter of semantics or perspective. You may not have the right to use the aircraft carrier as you wish, but you do have the right to the protection and/or defense it helps to provide. IOW, just like roads, it could be argued that we all have certain rights, but they are limited in scope by the laws and system of government in which we all have a say.

 

[kevman65]

I'm starting to think this whole "right" vs "privilege" discussion is all just a matter of semantics or perspective. You may not have the right to use the aircraft carrier as you wish, but you do have the right to the protection and/or defense it helps to provide. IOW, just like roads, it could be argued that we all have certain rights, but they are limited in scope by the laws and system of government in which we all have a say.

You differentiated it in your response. Limited in scope by the laws and system of government. Once you pass the minimum tests you have the right to drive on public roads. If you violate the laws they can be revoked. In order to gain that right you have to pass the tests, thus gaining a permission from the state. It is not an inherent right guaranteed by the Constitution(s).

The problem is getting people to see the difference between "its my God given right" and "I have to prove my abilities in order to gain this". If you have to prove something, you are asking for permission. If you are allowed to just do something "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion" it is your right.

 

[Suprtek]

You differentiated it in your response. Limited in scope by the laws and system of government. Once you pass the minimum tests you have the right to drive on public roads. If you violate the laws they can be revoked. In order to gain that right you have to pass the tests, thus gaining a permission from the state. It is not an inherent right guaranteed by the Constitution(s).

The problem is getting people to see the difference between "its my God given right" and "I have to prove my abilities in order to gain this". If you have to prove something, you are asking for permission. If you are allowed to just do something "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion" it is your right.

I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is the line between right and privilege is not necessarily clear. Even the most basic rights can be removed due to the fact that we as a people agreed to abide by certain laws. The right to life for instance. If a person is convicted of a capitol offense, when they get to the sentencing portion of their proceedings, they are now in a position of having to "ask permission" or "pass a test" to determine if they will gain the right to keep their life.

Its an extreme example, yes. I'm just playing devils advocate to demonstrate possible differences in perspective.

Now if I can take the long walk back to the OP...I speed all the time. I do it knowing if I get caught I may have to face consequences. I do not see that as an infringement.

 

[sepe]

Actually, a few years before you were born...

Those laws were created after speedsters began running into, or scaring the horses/buggies. Speaking of which, I haven't seen a horse & buggy on the road in years!

In some areas we still get em, but the Amish are few and far between here. Ohio and PA I'm sure see them a lot more.

Ya'll must be some highfalutin big city folk. Up in these parts it is easy to find evidence of the Amish on plenty of roads.

 

[Expat]

A lot of my family used to drink beer while they were driving. If you aren't intoxicated how is that anyone's business.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You differentiated it in your response. Limited in scope by the laws and system of government. Once you pass the minimum tests you have the right to drive on public roads. If you violate the laws they can be revoked. In order to gain that right you have to pass the tests, thus gaining a permission from the state. It is not an inherent right guaranteed by the Constitution(s).

The problem is getting people to see the difference between "its my God given right" and "I have to prove my abilities in order to gain this". If you have to prove something, you are asking for permission. If you are allowed to just do something "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion" it is your right.

When did it quit being a right? And become a privilege?

In 1929, the General Assembly passed a law known as the “Motor Vehicle Operators and Chauffeurs License Law,” requiring all drivers to have a license.

https://myweb.in.gov/BMV/mybmvportal...ndianaBMV.aspx __________________

 

[steveh_131]

I vote that it is infringing rights.

When I cause an accident and damage a person or property, then it becomes a crime. Until then, leave us alone.

 

[88GT]

Although BumpShadow does sound crazy he does make some interesting points. What would my life be like if I rode my bicycle 30 minutes to work opposed to driving one hour to work? Of course I would have to have a different job but I would say it would improve my quality of life dramatically provided I could get an ok paying job. Right now I spend about 300 a month in gas so I could take a 300 a month reduction in pay to do that. Sorry to thread jack

YOUR CHOICE. He's implying that the phenomenon of automobile ownership is a complete sham from the top to the bottom.

Nowhere in the state Constitution nor the federal one does it state anyone has the inherent right to travel on public roads with a private form of transportation.

So only those rights granted in the Constitutions are legitimate ones?

People trying to read into the Constitution(s) things they have done for years as an inherent right are just as bad as those who try to read out the inherent rights that are there.

I'm not reading anything into anything. I'm logically concluding the totality of what it means to be free as intended by the framers who wrote those documents in an effort to preserve those liberties in their purest and least restrictive form.

In order to LEGALLY operate any motor vehicle on a public roadway one has to first pass a minimum proficiency written and driving test. Whether its administered by the state, a recognized public school driving program, or a recognized private school driving program. There is nothing about rights in any of that, it is a privilege granted once one exhibits the MINIMUM proficiency in the written and practical fields.

In order to LEGALLY carry and possess a firearm in the state of Indiana one has to first pass a minimum proficiency written and range test. Whether its administered by the state, a recognized indoctrination program, or a private business contracting with the state. There is nothing about rights in any of that, it is a privilege granted once one exhibits the MINIMUM proficiency in the written and practical fields.

The state at any time can revoke your privilege to drive, excessive tickets for moving violations, reckless driving, drunk driving, overly aggressive driving.

The state at any time can revoke your privilege to carry and possess firearms.

Just because you wish it to be a right, doesn't mean it is covered anywhere as such. The only driving right you have is the ability to drive in other states on your home state license, but that in turn relies on the fact that your home state has not revoked your driving privileges.

I reject your argument of the legitimacy of governmental powers based solely on the fact that government exercises those powers. You fail to see the contradiction in your argument apparently. Or you agree that the RKBA is just a privilege granted us by the state. I said it before, I'll say it again: you can't have it both ways.

As to the question of speed limits infringing your rights, no they do not.

I never said they did.

Also, 88GT, people are neither absurd nor stupid because they don't agree with your version of Rights and Privileges.

Newsflash: they aren't *my* versions. I just happen to agree with the people who first put pen to paper explaining them. But, the characterization of automobiles as a sham to manipulate the population is absurd.

 

[Bunnykid68]

In order to LEGALLY carry and possess a firearm in the state of Indiana one has to first pass a minimum proficiency written and range test. Whether its administered by the state, a recognized indoctrination program, or a private business contracting with the state. There is nothing about rights in any of that, it is a privilege granted once one exhibits the MINIMUM proficiency in the written and practical fields.

Since when do you have to take any test to get an LTCH?