Is it time to take the keys away from our teenage drivers?

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> The funny part is, some of these "disturbing attitudes" are right
> on the money. Only the sanctimonious liberal media thinks there
> is anything wrong with "I drive fast to keep up with traffic." For the
> most part, however, these studies reaffirm what I've been saying all
> along: teenaged drivers, as a group, often don't have the good
> judgement to safely operate a 2-ton death machine.

It never ends. There are always those who would seek to deny a certain
group of others their Right to the use of the Public Highways. It's a
disgusting behavior.

If someone really is dangerous on the highways, they will personally
demonstrate this danger and can then be legally removed from the
highways via Due Process of Law. But, NO,,,, That's not enough for
some. Too many of you pricks are always seeking to circumvent Due
Process and promote the wholesale denial of Rights to people based on
nothing but profiling. Again, I say DISGUSTING.

> proffsl:
> If someone really is dangerous on the highways, they will personally
> demonstrate this danger and can then be legally removed from the
> highways via Due Process of Law. But, NO,,,, That's not enough for
> some.

For the "if it will save just one life..." crowd, it is never enough.
And if we are going to discriminate on the basis of age any worse than
we do already, what do we raise the driving age to? 21? 25? 100?
Afterall, doing so will save lives.....

proffsl wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >
> > The funny part is, some of these "disturbing attitudes" are right
> > on the money. Only the sanctimonious liberal media thinks there
> > is anything wrong with "I drive fast to keep up with traffic." For the
> > most part, however, these studies reaffirm what I've been saying all
> > along: teenaged drivers, as a group, often don't have the good
> > judgement to safely operate a 2-ton death machine.
>
> It never ends. There are always those who would seek to deny a certain
> group of others their Right to the use of the Public Highways. It's a
> disgusting behavior.

There is no right to drive on the public highways. It is a privilege.
>From time to time it is necessary to rescind that privilege from those
who abuse it.

>
> If someone really is dangerous on the highways, they will personally
> demonstrate this danger and can then be legally removed from the
> highways via Due Process of Law. But, NO,,,, That's not enough for
> some. Too many of you pricks are always seeking to circumvent Due
> Process and promote the wholesale denial of Rights to people based on
> nothing but profiling. Again, I say DISGUSTING.

necromancer wrote:
> proffsl:
> >
> > If someone really is dangerous on the highways, they will personally
> > demonstrate this danger and can then be legally removed from the
> > highways via Due Process of Law. But, NO,,,, That's not enough for
> > some.
>
> For the "if it will save just one life..." crowd, it is never enough.
> And if we are going to discriminate on the basis of age any worse than
> we do already, what do we raise the driving age to? 21? 25? 100?
> Afterall, doing so will save lives.....

Saving Life is not the purupose of government. The purpose of
government is to Secure the RIGHT to Life.

Those who would surrender their Rights for Security deserve and get
neither.

> proffsl:
> Saving Life is not the purupose of government. The purpose of
> government is to Secure the RIGHT to Life.

You know that. And I know that. Now if someone would just tell the
government that, we'd be all set...

> Those who would surrender their Rights for Security deserve and get
> neither.

Unfortunately, those who would surrender *their* rights have no problem
surrendering *our* rights also...

Furious George wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > >
> > > The funny part is, some of these "disturbing attitudes" are right
> > > on the money. Only the sanctimonious liberal media thinks there
> > > is anything wrong with "I drive fast to keep up with traffic." For the
> > > most part, however, these studies reaffirm what I've been saying all
> > > along: teenaged drivers, as a group, often don't have the good
> > > judgement to safely operate a 2-ton death machine.
> >
> > It never ends. There are always those who would seek to deny a
> > certain group of others their Right to the use of the Public Highways.
> > It's a disgusting behavior.
>
> There is no right to drive on the public highways. It is a privilege.

We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our
Public Highways.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274


> From time to time it is necessary to rescind that privilege from those
> who abuse it.

Simply being a member of a certain profile does not constitute abuse of
a privilege, or a Right.

necromancer wrote:
> proffsl:
> >
> > Saving Life is not the purupose of government. The purpose
> > of government is to Secure the RIGHT to Life.
>
> You know that. And I know that. Now if someone would just tell
> the government that, we'd be all set...

Not someone, but everyone. And, I'm telling everyone.


> > Those who would surrender their Rights for Security deserve and
> > get neither.
>
> Unfortunately, those who would surrender *their* rights have no
> problem surrendering *our* rights also...

Those who would surrender MY Rights are violating MY Rights. And,
fortunately, I will exercise my Rights to thwart those who would
violate mine.

proffsl wrote:
> necromancer wrote:
> > proffsl:
> > >
> > > If someone really is dangerous on the highways, they will personally
> > > demonstrate this danger and can then be legally removed from the
> > > highways via Due Process of Law. But, NO,,,, That's not enough for
> > > some.
> >
> > For the "if it will save just one life..." crowd, it is never enough.
> > And if we are going to discriminate on the basis of age any worse than
> > we do already, what do we raise the driving age to? 21? 25? 100?
> > Afterall, doing so will save lives.....
>
> Saving Life is not the purupose of government. The purpose of
> government is to Secure the RIGHT to Life.

Neither is building highways. But they did it. You can't expect the
public (through the agency of government) to build a highway and then
not regulate it.

>
> Those who would surrender their Rights for Security deserve and get
> neither.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Mar 2006 19:30:49 -0800, "proffsl" > wrote:
>
>>Too many of you pricks are always seeking to circumvent Due
>>Process and promote the wholesale denial of Rights to people based on
>>nothing but profiling. Again, I say DISGUSTING.
>
> So I suppose you're in favor of infant voting? And removing the
> statutory rape laws from the books so that minors can legally engage
> in sexual activity with adults? And of course the lowering of the
> drinking age to birth?
>
> If you support any of these other forms of age discrimination, you are
> a hypocrite.

Well, to play the devil's advocate . . . countries with no minimum drinking
age do not have problems with teenage drinking and very few problems with
alcoholism. So maybe the drinking age SHOULD be lowered to birth. It sure
would solve a lot of problems, and cheaply! As for infant voting, why NOT
give infants a vote? Sure, the parents can typically vote, but shouldn't
the infant count for something? Maybe you should get another 1/2 vote for
each child under the age of 18. A lot of problems related to teenagers can
directly be traced to the fact that teenagers can NOT vote. So maybe the
actual voting age (where you can vote for yourself) should be lowered to
about 12. I'm serious, by the way. Most 12-year-olds are mature enough and
smart enough to be INFORMED voters. Ironically, if 12-year-olds COULD vote,
they'd probably take the responsibility much more seriously than their
mid-thirties parents do. Obviously, we need statutory rape laws. But in
some cases, they do more harm than good. Is it right to have an 18 year old
go to prison and have to register as a sex offender for life just because he
dared to **** his 16-year-old girlfriend??? I don't think so. Females
mature faster than males, so it's quite natural to see teenage girls be
attracted to slightly older boyfriends. But in many cases, this NATURAL
attraction can land the boyfriend in huge HUGE trouble, and that's not
right. You shouldn't have to go to prison for being human. You shouldn't
have to be labeled as a sex offender for being human. -Dave

> Scott en Aztlán:

> >For the "if it will save just one life..." crowd, it is never enough.
> >And if we are going to discriminate on the basis of age any worse than
> >we do already, what do we raise the driving age to? 21? 25? 100?
>
> You're both missing the point.

So, instead of hormone fueled, inexperienced 16YO's behind the wheel, yo
would rather have alcohol fueled inexperienced 21/25YO's or wheezing
inexperienced 100YO's behind the wheel? Gotchya.

> YES, the ideal solution would be to let everyone drive and weed out
> the bad ones through testing and law enforcement. The problem is,
> doing that correctly takes MONEY - money we as a society never have
> enough of. So we approximate that utopian ideal with a more
> cost-effective solution: statistically sound age discrimination.

What's wrong with *real* driver training (at the expense of the
prospective driver or his/her parents) followed by *real* driver testing
(not just a ride around the block with a DMV examiner) and reasonable
enforcement of traffic laws set with safety and not revenue inmind?

BTW, if We The People can afford to give money to Andres Serrano to take
pictures of a Crucifix in a glass of urine, then we can afford to
implement some real driver standards in this land of ours to deal with
the (real or perceived) issue of poor driving in the US so that we don't
have to resort to making illusions of making the roads safer through
gimicks like raising the min. driving age.

> It may chap your cheeks, but it's the best we can realistically do.

No it doesn't and no it isn't.