jaybird
"and the right, ordinarily, of free transit"
Driving is a Right 2563Does anyone else see "driver's license" anywhere in those 7 words? They're both violations of state law. So you say... Only to you. I can't find anyone else...
Irrelevant. You suggested that something done everyday is okay. Theft occurs every day. Doesn't make it right.
Those Laws are UnConsbreastutional.
Irrelevant. If I do or do not obey those laws is not the issue. The issue is the fact that those Laws are UnConsbreastutional.
So, if somebody took a golf club, and swung it recklessly, endangering others, you'd arrest them for "Reckless Driving"?
Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Ya know jaybird, I don't find you too awfully offensive, but,,,,,, how can I say this politely,,,,,, but I'm beginning to find you humorous.
Irrelevant to the point. Point is, Drivers Licenses are not required for any practical purpose, and they are UnConsbreastutional.
Not how what works? You ask me what I personally considered an offical ID, and I told you. That's the way it works, and you'll just have to accept it.
No, you have not. You presented your excuses, but you did not touch on my discrediting of your excuses.
And, as I asked you before, but you totally ignored, WHY then must one continue to re-apply for Licenses once they've demonstrated they know the "rules of the road". AND, if this is true, WHY then is testing NOT a part of the re-application? This excuse doesn't wash.
Nobody need a Liberty Licenses for any patterns of misconduct to be known. Again, this excuse doesn't wash.
Well, Driver Licensing Laws make no sense either. They don't make anybody any safer than they would be without them. And, they don't teach anyone anything about the rules of the road. But, this is irrelevant, as the point of the scenario wasn't safety, but about the Right of Liberty.
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. Do you agree?
