steveh_131
Grandmaster
WHICH AMENDMENT SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR.
THE NONETH AMENDMENT, THAT'S WHICH ONE.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Less than two weeks to the general election. Where is the candidate info?
- Thread starter pudly
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nra war on guns
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
WHICH AMENDMENT SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR.
THE NONETH AMENDMENT, THAT'S WHICH ONE.
I'll thank you not to use my property as a throughway to your destiny. You're welcome to use public property as far as public consensus allows. You can walk on public sidewalks, but the collective public (government) gets to choose the rules. You can drive on public roads, but the public gets to choose the rules.
Shhhh. Don't tell anyone. I sometimes break the rules.
You can own and drive whatever car you want, where ever you want, however you want to drive it--95 mph while shaving and texting at the same time, if you want. On your own property. But I get a sliver of the pie that decides how people get to use public roads. So far my sliver hasn't helped exclude all restrictions for people who drive black Jeeps. Oh well.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
I didn't say anything about using private property to get there.
The point I was making is that the argument that there is no right to drive is premised on the notion that having rules for driving negates the possibility that driving is a right. Is that really the case? Are not all of our rights, or more specifically the exercise of them, governed by rules, even if it's nothing more than the rule that we cause no harm?
I can say what I want, but I can't.
I can wear what I want, but I can't.
I can write what I want, but I can't.
All of our rights are restricted by rules to some degree. Does that mean they are no longer rights?
That exact argument was used against law enforcement using automobiles.
I'm selfish. I advocate that I shouldn't have to obey traffic laws. To make it easier on traffic cops, I added the black Jeep thing because I drive a black jeep.
However, I'm also pragmatic. I realize the strength in numbers. You can join my fight for black Jeep owners. Maybe let in some other like-minded black jeep owners. Heck, maybe we can even drop the color requirement. But I draw the line at tan. Oh, and Toupe. Definitely no Toupe. In fact, they should have to obey more stringent traffic laws.
The argument that there is no right to drive is premised on the notion that public roads are not your property. The government that manages (owns) the roads gives you permission to drive on them.
ETA: lawmakers who pass laws that say you can't own unregistered automobiles should be publicly flogged. You should be able to drive whatever vehicle you want however you want on your own property and it's none of the government's business until you decide to drive on public roads. You need permission for that.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Source?
So we don't have a right to bear arms then? We have to get permission to carry, don't we?
I received a PERSONAL phone call from Ray Ford(R), running against tim skinner(d), for State Rep for my district. Not nly was he not in a hurry to get rid of me but we spoke at length about things. I asked him about 2nd Amendment things of course and he is in full support of this Right and even owns guns which we also spoke about as well. Stuff like which brands we like, hunter? does he carry? (He didn't answer this though he does have his LTCH) and soe other things like was he religious or is he Pro Life? He was very pleasant and I was gonna vote for him anyway but now I have said so to him and then we said our good-byes and it was done. Nice guy. 
Dosproduction
Master
Wrong we have the right to bear arms uninfringed thanks to the 2nd amendment. There is no amendment that says u can drive a car. U do have the right to go anywhere u want as long is it is not on private property then it is up to the owners. But unlike what someone said the government is not allowed to own land. Said roads are open to all the public for travel. Society can regulate what means of transportation are safe at what time periods BUT only to protect lives and liberty of others. Cars are very dangerous much more then guns or anything else that is why u have to prove your ability to use a car in order to use it through a drivers license which is perfectly fine in regards to Liberty and the Constitution.
The basic principle of LIBERTY is that u can do WHAT EVER U WANT as long as u do not infringe on others LIBERTY. So when u r taking others rights to LIFE by texting and driving u lose your right to do it. The 2nd amendment is a prime example of this. U (according to the amendment) should be able to carry what ever where ever. And u can use it to protect yours or others liberty but u can not use it to take someone's liberty unless they initiated the taking of someone else's liberty first.
The initiation of FORCE is wrong. But the use of FORCE to stop others from using force is OK. So if u take someone's lunch u r wrong. But if they take your lunch then u r fully justified in using force to take it back. This applies to the cars if some one is taking away peoples right to live then it is ok to stop them from doing that. If the texting was something that was proven nondistracting and not more dangerous to driving and peoples lives then it would not be ok to take that away. Which I personally think talking on your phone at all is to distracting for the average driver but society does not think so yet.
I didn't get past this.
First, we don't have RKBA because of the 2nd.
Second, our rights aren't limited only to the ones expressly listed.
2ADMNLOVER
Grandmaster
But, the expression of our " rights " often has been limited thanks to the chuckle heads that don't know how to act in public .
We've long since entered a phase where we readily accept all of our rights to be subject to all sorts of infringements, even the ones the Constitution expressly forbids. Our Constitution does not prohibit states and the people placing certain restrictions and infringements on rights that are duly legislated and not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Driving is one of those rights. We, through our elected leaders have agreed that there are to be certain requirements to be met before a person is allowed to drive, walk, drive horse and buggy, bicycle, or what have you upon the highways.
If we are free to travel and roads were somehow magically reverted to constructs developed from among landowners and private developers -- no government, of any level, involved, how then could one be free to travel and drive when the owners of the roads required you to pay tolls, limited the conveyances allowed, or credentials one must possess in order to access these private, free market-owned roads and highways? You wouldn't be free. Your ability to travel would be limited by your ability to pay or meet the criteria.
If we are free to travel and roads were somehow magically reverted to constructs developed from among landowners and private developers -- no government, of any level, involved, how then could one be free to travel and drive when the owners of the roads required you to pay tolls, limited the conveyances allowed, or credentials one must possess in order to access these private, free market-owned roads and highways? You wouldn't be free. Your ability to travel would be limited by your ability to pay or meet the criteria.
