New car purchase

Not according to the Constitution. However, those that job it is to interpret the Constitution have made many different conditions upon ownership of firearms.

The point of the "right to bear arms" clause was to allow people to defend themselves against the tyranny of government if it ever came down to a point that the people wanted to overthrow it.

Well if it assertions that make the case, you made the assertion that DRLs provided a benefit, without even suggesting where one could look to find information that they did. Perhaps 'you' need to provide us with some proof of 'your' assertion first. I never did home work for my children or grand children and I'm not about to start by doing yours. ;)

mike

In spite of efforts of some to take away the right, over the years in the US, to protect ones family and country there are basically few if any restriction on rifles and shot guns. Only regulations for hand guns that one needs a permit, which almost anybody can acquire, to conceal a weapon. There is however an outright ban on owning fully automatic weapons. On the question of the privilege to drive on the highways and byways of a states, one must conform to the laws and regulations in that state, except when driving on private property. With the exception of those state laws that would violate the commerce clause or Article 10. I can walk down the street with a rifle over my shoulder and a pistol on my belt if I wish, but I can not drive an unregistered, unsafe, uninsured vehicle and I must be properly licensed to do so. Anything else in subject to citation, fines, arrest or even incarceration upon conviction.

mike hunt

The founders would have been better off using the explicit words of the Pennsylvania Constitution, pertaining to the absolute right of the people to bear arms, rather then muddying the waters with the additional militia wording. I suppose they had no choice since there was no federal army. Some argue militia meant the government military but they forget where was NO federal army. The Navy and its marines were charged with the protection the borders from foreign enemies in those days. The states provided the volunteers in the various states militia. I can not even imagine how anybody today could even suggest a new country, that had just defeated the British army with volunteer militiamen, putting in their new constitution that the ONLY people that should be armed in the new county of free people should be the GOVERNMENT (Kings) troops. ;)

mike hunt

Well, it's so self evident that I didn't consider that anyone would doubt it...you didn't, so I must have been right. :)

aaand you must have taken my assertion as true because you didn't demand a cite did you now? :)

THEN you asserted that DRL's caused more accidents than they prevented and I'm asking for a cite...I realize that it probably takes more mental HP than you possess to think this through so I'll excuse you if you don't reply.

So, if driving is a privilege then even though you have all the qualifications to be issued with a driver's license an official at the DMV can arbitrarily decide to refuse to issue you a driver's license, right?

Well hell...I'm told that one must obtain a license, not be a felon etc to -earn- the right to bear arms and one must not be a felon and must obtain a license to drive a car so why is one a 'privilege' and one a 'right'?

I think that that note on a driver's license saying "A driver's license is a privilege, not a right" should never have been put on there...a privilege is some favour which can be withheld or given arbitrarily (at a whim).

A driver's license -must- be issued as long as the applicant is not a felon, has passed the DMV imposed 'driver test', has all his limbs or can show DMV exemption etc.

It cannot be refused arbitrarily therefore it's -not- a privilege...

I just looked at mine and find that that line is no longer there!...you guys in the States still got it?.. :)

Why do you fine it necessary to resort to a personal attack? You expressed an opinion that DRLs present a safety advantage. I simply tried to inform you that DRLs are NOT uniformly considered a safety improvement, as you apparently believe. You asked for a cite and I reminded you the site was listed in my original post. The site is US Congressional Record of the US Senate hearings concerning NHTSA regulations and GM request to require DRLs in the US. As I pointed out DRLs are NOT standard in the US because the US Senate investigation determined that DRLs can cause as many accidents as they may prevent. That is not my opinion but rather that of the US Senate Committee Report and the two University Engineering Departments that did the study for the NHTSA. You made disagree if you choose but that will not change the facts as they pertain to the determination of the US Senate that they are not advantages.

mike hunt

How do you come to that conclusion?

mike

Your logic defies logic it seems. ;)

mike

The new Civic is outstanding! It has leapfrogged the Corolla and others, to set a new benchmark in style and engineering.

There's nothing especially wrong with the Corolla, it's just that Honda has set a new standard in this class, IMHO.

Pardon me for changing the subject line, but it seems the only way to cut through the totally irrelevant poliical (and otherwise petty) bickering.

Aw...poor baby...did mean old me hurt your little feelings?...gee...

Well, there you go then...

You have to be kidding, I was simply stating the fact that your opinion was misguided. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I could not care less what you choose to believe,

mike hunt

Not damned likely, no...our taxes pay for the highways and their upkeep, our taxes pay for the police force who enforce the rules that the people have instructed the gov't to apply for our safety. We (the people) own the roads. Who are these people who give us these privileges (favours) of driving our cars on our roads?.

Of course we need rules, requirements, tests etc to govern -who- gets permission to drive...BUT, once we've fulfilled all these requirements then the DMV MUST issue a driver's license...so it's NOT a PRIVILEGE. They MUST issue it.

THAT'S my beef, the use of that word inappropriately...it's a scare tactic, to make us fear losing the license, "Dad'L take your toy away!" type of thing...I object to my Gov't using scare tactics on me.

Perhaps you missed the part of my post that said the motor vehicle laws are enacted by your elected representatives. If they are doing something with which you do not agree, you are free to vote for legislators that will. It is your right, as well as a privilege, one that people in many countries do not have. I'm not familiar with the laws in Canada but in the US only those that use the highways and byways pay the fuel and vehicle taxes or tolls that are used to build and maintain the highways in this country. Speaking of Canada what leads you believe that in a country that does not even allow its citizens the right to own a gun to protect themselves and their families would make driving a right when it is a privilege in every other country? Try driving while intoxicated and see what happens when you get caught and tell the judge you have the right to drive ;)

mike hunt

"Mike Hunter" wrote: snip

Who sold you that bull poopy?...I own 4 rifles, 2 shotguns and a couple pistols...they're all licensed properly...are yours?

Don't lets be silly here in public shall we...

Who is being silly? You seem to think it is OK for gun ownership to be a privilege that requires a license but driving is a right. LOL

enacted by your elected representatives. If they are doing something with which you do not agree, you are free to vote for legislators that will. It is your right, as well as a privilege, one that people in many countries do not have. I'm not familiar with the laws in Canada but in the US only those that use the highways and byways pay the fuel and vehicle taxes or tolls that are used to build and maintain the highways in this country. Speaking of Canada what leads you believe that in a country that does not even allow its citizens the right to own a gun to protect themselves and their families would make driving a right when it is a privilege in every other country? Try driving while intoxicated and see what happens when you get caught and tell the judge you have the right to drive ;)

mike hunt

Gee...you're having trouble understanding me aren't you...my ONLY objection is the 'scare tactic' of the gov't writing 'driving is a privilege' on the DL...that's all. You DO know the difference between a privilege and a right don't you?. Here, I'll give you

-my- take on the words:

Right= Something which must be granted as long as the 'receiver' has fulfilled all of the conditions required by law

Privilege= a favour which can be given OR withheld at the whim of the giver.

Aren't these close?...what's your take?...