Why would that be? They don't usually print non-stories.Your example is total horse****. As in 'did not happen' ..that kind.
If it did..you would have a news article about the incident to link to.
Nobody Should Need A Driver's License
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
If my young un got 'roughed over' without cause like he alleges his did...methinks it would have become a story pretty quick. ;-)
Yes indeed, I agree.... yours was quite unbelievable. How did I manage to live here for so many decades, raise all my kids here, and see all my friends kids raised here..and not see anything like you described. Ever.
No utopia, pal..just direct observation from someone who has lived here a very long time.
There are certainly a few hoods in a few well-knownareas where I could see practically anyone getting stopped and queried. I'm sure you taught your kids to stay away from those..right?
I think you read a different version than I did, the story I read says the searched her and had her father come and pick her up.
They arrested her for what? They are not allowed to keep the reason for an arrest a secret.
BOP
Well-Known Member
I saw this on policewomen of...(Cincinnati, I think). Black guy gets pulled over. Cop asked him for his driver's license. Guy responds: "you ain't gonna find no driver's license in the hood."
Once again, what the hell did you read? he never said a word about her being arrested.They arrested her for what? They are not allowed to keep the reason for an arrest a secret.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
A drivers license has nothing to do with travel. You can travel all you like within the US with zero interference from government. Unless you want to drive. A drivers license is a permit to operate a motor vehicle. We require a permit because of the danger and risk posed by improper operation.
And a drivers license is state issued so, the constitution doesn't apply anyway because the constitution does not limit what the states can do other than the bill of rights and there is no fundamental right to freely do something that can so impact the rights of others.
This is silly.
Pushrod
Patriot
A gun license has nothing to do with owning the gun. You can own a gun all you like within the US with zero interference from government. Unless you want to use it. A gun license is a permit to operate a firearm. We require a permit because of the danger and risk posed by improper operation.
And a gun license is state issued so, the constitution doesn't apply anyway because the constitution does not limit what the states can do other than the bill of rights and there is no fundamental right to freely do something that can so impact the rights of others.
This is silly.
Fixed!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
We have the right to keep and bear. The states have the right to regulate. The problem is when the regulation crosses over into defacto, or actual, prohibition.
Pushrod
Patriot
We have the right to keep and bear. The states have the right to regulate. The problem is when the regulation crosses over into defacto, or actual, prohibition.
This is mainly what I was taking issue with:
Yes, you do (or should) have the freedom to do things that has the potential to impact the rights of others. But there has to be consequences to your actions if they do end up impacting others Rights. With Rights come responsibilities. If I take my gun and shoot you without lawful justification, I should suffer the consequences of my action. If I take my car and crush a group of people with it without lawful justification, I should suffer the consequences of my action. There should be NO PRIOR RESTRAINT by the government on my actions or property just because I have the potential to use my property to impact anothers life liberty or happiness.
TurboK9
New Member
A drivers license has nothing to do with travel. You can travel all you like within the US with zero interference from government. Unless you want to drive. A drivers license is a permit to operate a motor vehicle. We require a permit because of the danger and risk posed by improper operation.
And a drivers license is state issued so, the constitution doesn't apply anyway because the constitution does not limit what the states can do other than the bill of rights and there is no fundamental right to freely do something that can so impact the rights of others.
This is silly.
Ahhh but what is the motivation for issuing drivers licenses?? Seriously... Devil's advocate. What is the motivation for requiring them...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This is mainly what I was taking issue with:
Yes, you do (or should) have the freedom to do things that has the potential to impact the rights of others. But there has to be consequences to your actions if they do end up impacting others Rights. With Rights come responsibilities. If I take my gun and shoot you without lawful justification, I should suffer the consequences of my action. If I take my car and crush a group of people with it without lawful justification, I should suffer the consequences of my action. There should be NO PRIOR RESTRAINT by the government on my actions or property just because I have the potential to use my property to impact anothers life liberty or happiness.
See, there is where the good gets lost in pursuit of the perfect.
You can sit there and argue that you thusly have the right to have a nuclear bomb in your basement if you so freely choose and we simply hold you responsible if something goes...awry. But, the potential damage you could cause is exponentially beyond your ability to be held responsible.
So, we pro 2A types lose those sympathetic to the right to keep and bear arms when they start thinking that we are a bunch of unreasonable absolutists. We lose the good in pursuit of the perfect.
There were speed limits in DC during the civil war to provide some sort of restraint on folks. This is not unreasonable.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If I understand my history, the increase in cars lead to the menace of having too many cars in too small of spaces, cities, town, etc, and the reasonable response by government to regulate their use, seeking a mechanism to not only see how many cars there were but, who was operating poorly, carrot/stick sort of stuff.
I would think that licensing in NYC came long before it did in Montana.
So that little kids and severely disabled people can't just jump in the car and hit the streets. Not that they don't do it anyway, but this makes it punishable.
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
pick up @ 21:45
don't talk to the police EVER ....
TurboK9
New Member
If I understand my history, the increase in cars lead to the menace of having too many cars in too small of spaces, cities, town, etc, and the reasonable response by government to regulate their use, seeking a mechanism to not only see how many cars there were but, who was operating poorly, carrot/stick sort of stuff.
I would think that licensing in NYC came long before it did in Montana.
Well that may be what you believe was the original motivation, but the only people who get a license are those who want to drive... and everyone who wants to drive gets a license... so it doesn't really control the number of vehicles on the road does it?
So. Why do they do it??
TurboK9
New Member
Do you need to have a licensing system to say "You can't drive till you are 16 and not if you are severly disabled"? Wouldn't a state ID serve to identify that basic qualification?