Driving is a Right 2560

jaybird

What I posted is a Supreme Court ruling stating that we have the Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. It just happens that State Driver Licensing Laws are in Violation of that Right.

Yes it does. Doesn't matter how long ago it was ruled.

Irrelivant. Theft occurs everday. Doesn't make it right.

Well, I said "Reckless Endangerment", not "Reckless Driving". Fact is, "Reckless Driving" is not necessarly "Reckless Endangerment". Depends on the circumstances. I see nothing wrong with "Reckless Driving" in and of itself. But, I agree 100% with the prosecution of those who Recklessly Endanger the lives or property of others.

But, regardless, as you can see, Driver Licensing Laws were not required for prosecution.

Driver Licensing Laws are a Violation of our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.

Anything offically recognized as being an acceptable form of Identification. This offical ID would not be a REQUIRED thing, but a VOLUNTARY thing. This offical ID would offer it's carrier certain benefits, otherwise they would have no need to Voluntere to obtain one. But, they would not be required to obtain one before being allowed to exercise their Rights.

Jaybird. I'm trying to talk to you as a human. We're not in a court of law here. You've read the ruling, and to a degree you've agreed that it states we have a Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. But, you keep trying to play legal trickery. I'd prefer to leave such trickery to lawyers.

I also have arguments of reason suggesting this Right should exist, and that our Highways would be no less safe without Driver Licensing as they are today. You've hardly, if even, touched on my arguments that this Right should exist, or that Driver Licensing provides nothing to make our Highways safer that didn't already exist.

My use of capitalization IS NOT an attempt to LOOK Offical, but ONLY to STRESS points of Importance.

And, if I don't answer, you'll buttume I don't? Even though my possession, or lack thereof, of a License would have absolutly no bearing on the truth of what I say here. Well, it's Irrelivant and I'm not going to answer. I'm not here to debate your impression of myself, and I'm not going to allow the discussion to wander in that direction at all.

Let me pose a scenario for you. Presume you were located in a room of my home with no exit except through a hallway door. No Windows, and walls of steel. Now, your Right of Liberty gives you ever Right to leave my home at your choosing. If I were to attempt to hold you there, that would be unlawful detainment.

Now, presume I told you that I wasn't keeping you there, that you could leave at any time you choose, but that I would not allow you to enter my hallway unless you first purchased some special shoes to walk through my hallway in, regardless if you had the money to purchase them or not.

Well, sir, no matter how cutsie or subtile that might be, it would still clbuttify as unlawful detainment, and I would not doubt in the least that a judge would find me guilty of such, and rightfully so.

Our Public Highways are intended as implements of Liberty. But, with this LIE that Driving is a Privilege, the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the Automobile, the MORE this LIE makes us all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.

See if you can deal with the common sense of this argument.