SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Just a note, here in the US driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

Does the UK define driving as a right?

--Outlaw.

ok lets look at the language used in the law....a motor vehicle is specifically referring to a vehicle engaged in commerce....



most of us here are simply travelers, NOT drivers....drivers in the language used in the law means someone engaged in commerce...a truck DRIVER, a taxi DRIVER....


if im driving to work or driving my children to some athletic event i am not a driver i am a traveler....and the right to freely travel is a common law right...

this driving/traveler issue only made more complicated with DMV and people voluntarily entering in a contract with the dmv by getting licensed....thus you are agreeing to put yourself under the jurisdiction of their laws..


CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights.

[tk471138]

Frankly im disgusted by all the people who are so quick to throw away their creator endowed, innate rights away....

im surprised that you people would want to give MORE power to the govt and you are fine with asking permission and jumping through hoops to exercise your rights
Where a state issues a permission, it is reasonable that such permission can be revoked by issuer for any reason it chooses.


i find it kinda humerous that the ONE person talking about unrestricted constitutional freedom and liberty is the ONLY one citing law (that would be me)

while all the slaves and subjects are the ones going on about how we need to regulate peoples innate freedom (when i already posted laws on why doing such a thing is ILLEGAL)

why cant you people handle freedom??

do you lack personal responsibility??

do you lack dignity??

do you really want a world where you have to ASK govt for permission to exercise your rights ?? permission that can be revoked at anytime or simply not grated for any reason ??? because i have news for you that is NO WHERE NEAR what freedom is...

[von Pilsner]

Why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

The social contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions: first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

It has been going on for a long time.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

Why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

The social contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions: first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

It has been going on for a long time.

ROFL doublethink much??

so we give up our freedom and submit to PROTECT our rights ???

really?? how does that work...


the ONLY social contract that i agree to is to not infringe or encroach on the rights of others, and to follow all contracts i knowingly and voluntarily enter into...