The Right to Drive Safely

Larry Bud wrote:
> Proffsl wrote:
> > Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> > >
> > > The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that
> > > time, automobiles were virtually unknown.
> >
> > So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow
> > invalidate the Constitution? NO.
>
> No, but you're talking about theory and not reality.

No but nothing. Either age invalidates the Constitution, or it does
not. A promise made forever, no matter how long it is kept, if broken
it is still a broken promise.


> What good does it do to argue about your rights when you're locked
> up in jail?

Irrelivant. I'm not here to debate your or my preceived value of this
Right, but merely it's existence.

proffsl wrote:
> Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> > Proffsl wrote:
> > >
> > > The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
> > > ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
> > > state. The Automobile is most definitely the Locomotion Ordinarily
> > > used for personal travel on our Public Highways today.
> >
> > The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
> > automobiles were virtually unknown.
>
> So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate
> the Constitution? NO.

No; it distinguishes the case. But I figured all *your* years in law
school would have made that as obvious to you as it is to me.

> The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for
> Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever the Locomotion
> Ordinarily used may be at any given time. A hundred and fifty years
> ago, the Locomotion Ordinarily used was the horse and buggy, and nobody
> would have argued that one didn't have a Right to Travel by Horse and
> Buggy. Today, the Locomotion Ordinarily used is the Automobile, yet
> you have been convinced it is somehow an exception.

That's because it is. A horse generally has the good sense not to run
into other horses. Judging by our highway death & injury rates, not to
mention property damage crashes, the average driver isn't quite that
smart.

> When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology
> consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms"
> does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS
> in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the
> Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.

Three words: Fully Automatic Weapons. Of course, you're probably a
card-carrying NRA member still in denial that the feds can do that.
Here's a tip: Don't let anyone find out who you *really are*. Hiding
behind a wimpy screen name like yours helps.

> Likewise, the Supreme Court didn't recognize our Right to Travel by
> HORSE AND BUGGY. Instead, they recognized our Right to Travel by the
> Locomotion Ordinarily used. And, today, it is undeniable that the
> Automobile IS the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Travel.
>
> > I doubt the decision has been revisited since
>
> The decision has been used as precedence in many cases.

Apparently not very effectively. You still carrying a driver's
license? Don't you still have to show one when you're renting a truck
to fill with fertilizer?

> > - but you're the fanatic.
>
> Oh my! A Personal Assault! An Ad Homimen. Will I ever survive your
> scathing words?

If you want to throw Latin phrases around to impress us, it behooves
you to spell them right: 'ad hominem'. Perhaps if I revert to an
earlier usenet sig line of mine, you'll understand why *you* will never
hear anything bordering on scathing from me:
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath our dignity."

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in
oups.com:

> proffsl wrote:
>
>> When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology
>> consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms"
>> does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS
>> in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the
>> Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.
>
> Three words: Fully Automatic Weapons.

Yes,what about them?

Note that citizens can still own them today,provided they get
fingerprinted,background checked,pay a $200 tax(a prohibitive amount of
money at the time it was enacted),get the approval of a local LEO,and live
in a state that permits ownership of them.Also,that the 1934 NFA was
believed to be unconstitutional,but the legal process was never
completed,the defendants disappearing or dying.Also that the "Ban" was in
form of a TAX,not any straight prohibition.

> Of course, you're probably a
> card-carrying NRA member still in denial that the feds can do that.

Well,the 2nd Amendment is very clear about it.
Only those who try to redefine terms and can't parse English think
otherwise.And that "incorportation" business is just more legal weaseling.
The only reason those unconstitutional laws still stand is the severe
penalties for failure if the USSC refuses to hear your case,as has happened
,or pulls a ruling like some of the more recent ones,disregarding the clear
language and intent of the Constitution.

> Here's a tip: Don't let anyone find out who you *really are*. Hiding
> behind a wimpy screen name like yours helps.

I'm who I purport to be.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> > > Proffsl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
> > > > ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
> > > > state. The Automobile is most definitely the Locomotion Ordinarily
> > > > used for personal travel on our Public Highways today.
> > >
> > > The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
> > > automobiles were virtually unknown.
> >
> > So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate
> > the Constitution? NO.
>
> No; it distinguishes the case. But I figured all *your* years in law
> school would have made that as obvious to you as it is to me.

I'm not here to debate your impression of myself, or yourself for that
matter.


> > The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for
> > Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever the Locomotion
> > Ordinarily used may be at any given time. A hundred and fifty years
> > ago, the Locomotion Ordinarily used was the horse and buggy, and
> > nobody would have argued that one didn't have a Right to Travel by
> > Horse and Buggy. Today, the Locomotion Ordinarily used is the
> > Automobile, yet you have been convinced it is somehow an exception.
>
> That's because it is. A horse generally has the good sense not to run
> into other horses. Judging by our highway death & injury rates, not to
> mention property damage crashes, the average driver isn't quite that
> smart.

No, it is not an exception. And, The national Fatality Rate per 100
Million Vehicle Miles Traveled is 1.48. The national Fatality Rate per
100 Thousand people is 1.99. You have a strange notion of what an
AVERAGE is. Two people out of 100 Thousand do not make an average!


> > When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology
> > consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms"
> > does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS
> > in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the
> > Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.
>
> Three words: Fully Automatic Weapons.

Two wrongs do not make a right.


> Of course, you're probably a card-carrying NRA member still in denial
> that the feds can do that. Here's a tip: Don't let anyone find out who
> you *really are*.

Here's a tip: I'm not here to debate your impression of who I "really
are".


> Hiding behind a wimpy screen name like yours helps.

More Ad Hominems. More Pesonal Assults. I find your behavior rather
repugnant.


> You still carrying a driver's license?

I'm not here to debate your impression of myself.


> Don't you still have to show one when you're renting a truck
> to fill with fertilizer?

A Libelous accusation disguised as a question! How quaint.

I'm not here to debate your impression of myself.


> > > - but you're the fanatic.
> >
> > Oh my! A Personal Assault! An Ad Homimen. Will I ever survive
> > your scathing words?
>
> If you want to throw Latin phrases around to impress us, it behooves
> you to spell them right: 'ad hominem'.

I'm not here to debate your impression of my spelling or typing skills.


> Perhaps if I revert to an earlier usenet sig line of mine, you'll
> understand why *you* will never hear anything bordering on
> scathing from me:
>
> C.R. Krieger
> "Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath our dignity."

Then, practice what you preach.

Instead, you go out of your way to lower your own dignity by the nature
of your responces.

Well?

proffsl wrote:
> Well?

Well, you're a troll.

How's that?

E.P.

gcmschem... wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Well?
>
> Well, you're a troll.

Rather, as it is you who is responding, yet off topic, it is YOU who is
the TROLL.

Now, if you wish to abandon your Trolling ways, and actually address
the issue, well, then, you'll still have been a Troll.