Driving a car is a privilege. It is one, for which one must get and maintain a number of things for. Valid insurance, a current drivers license.
If you violate any number of things, you can lose that privilege.
Gun ownership is a constitutional right.
The second amendment is second only to free speech, in fact.
To operate a car on private property, you don’t need a license, registration, or insurance. You can acquire and operate any car that you can afford. Does he really want to have those same conditions apply to guns? :=)
You can own an Unregistered Car and drive it all you want on Private Property without having a License.
You are only required to be Licensed and driving a Registered Car on Public Roads.
It’s still a pathetic argument, but the Libs have to have something to bitch and moan about.
I always ask these Gun Control and Confiscation Morons if they will volunteer to be the Point Man when they invade a Patriots home looking for an Arsenal.
Americans don’t have privileges other than being American. Drivers are licensed and insured for the protection of others. Riding a horse in the old days was not a privilege and neither is driving a car. Horses were a necessary part of life, necessary for commerce and travel, as is a car or truck. The government doesn’t grant us anything.
Driving a car is not specifically referenced in the Constitution, neither is driving a horsedrawn wagon. Howeverrights not specifically referenced are reserved for the States and the People.
It is not.
Gun ownership is a God given right.
The Constitution only comes in to the extent that this God given right can not be interfered with by government.
>> Driving a car is a privilege. It is one, for which one must get and maintain a number of things for. Valid insurance, a current drivers license.<<
Sorry, you are completely and erroneously wrong.
I posted this on another thread to a FReeper who is similarly misinformed or just plain ignorant, like you:
It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court several times and every time it has been ruled that “driving†is a right guaranteed under the US Constitution to freely travel wherever you want to. Driving is only a method of travel and free travel, whether on foot, bicycle or car, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Driving a vehicle for pay or hire or commercially is a privilege and can be - and is - regulated by states, and probably unconstitutionally, by the feds. But driving a conveyance of any kind for personal travel is a right, not a privilege. Do some research.
Just because the “drivers license” scam has been perpetuated by all gov’t entities, and people have fallen for it (accepted the scam of it being a “privilege” as you have) doesn’t mean that you are required to have a drivers license to travel in an automobile on public roads, except that by voluntarily applying for and accepting a drivers license contract with the state gov’t, you have subjected yourself to that scam. But it is still a voluntary contract by you and doesn’t change the fact that driving/travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even in a vehicle of any kind (other than commercial).
From Wikipedia (I know):
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Additionally:
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”
>> I don’t care a bit what the SCOTUS says about that, <<
You may not care but that has little import on how the world functions. I don’t care for a lot of things, but so far, I’m not emperor of the world and I don’t get my way. Neither are you or do you.
>> they have had little respect for the plain meaning of that “Supreme Law of the Land.” <<
On that, I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, there are many rulings detailing the constitutional basis for them, including lower court rulings. Then there is this:
ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”
>> The Federal government does have Constitutional jurisdiction over “postal roads” but try and find me one that they bought and built for that expressed purpose other than perhaps the Interstate Highways, which were instead justified as a means of national defense. <<
Again, from wiki:
“As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.”
What don’t you understand about “so fundamental... as not needing explicit enumeration”?
While you may not care what the courts have ruled, your opinion matters little. The facts are strongly against you.
“...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.â€
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.”
“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.”
“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.”
“...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion...” - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Again, do some research. Although your intellect seems stunted by your lack of care about how the real world works. Childishly stamping your feet and claiming that the court rulings don’t matter doesn’t hold much water in adult discussions.
“There are none so blind as one who will not see.”
“May your chains...”