Do you know what an EDR is?

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:25:04 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>> For those of us who still believe in the principles the US was founded
>>> on (this lets you out), yes, it is so bad to have the gvt subjecting
>>> us to MORE scrutiny. Every day there is more and more scrutiny by our
>>> more and more oppressive gvt. You people are like the frog in a pot
>>> of cold water that's put on the fire. You sit there without noticing
>>> that the cold water is getting hot till you wind up cooked. Our
>>> freedoms have never been under greater assault then they are at the
>>> moment and you and others sit on the sidelines cheering on the
>>> assault.
>>
>>I think you're confusing the Constitution with your driver's manual.
>>
>>Where are your precious rights (or mine, for that matter), when you
>>operate
>>a motor vehicle on public roads? Please - point me to them.
>>
>>What is it? The so-called Right to Privacy? Non-existant in this
>>situation.
>>Maybe you want to plead the Fifth, to claim that your car should not be
>>forced to testify against you? No, sorry, doesn't apply here.
>>
>>Do you own an EZPass? How about a cellphone? Ever drive through radar or a
>>traffic camera? How is it that your every movement is tracked and has been
>>tracked for years, but you rail about a little black box in new cars?
>>
>>You're worried about scrutiny? Do you have any idea how many video cameras
>>point at you though the course of a day?
>>
>>What freedom is it, exactly, that is under attack by this little black
>>box?
>>I'd really like to know.
>>
>>Are there any legal scholars in this newsgroup that can help?
>>
>>dwight
>>www.tfrog93.com
>>
>
> You merely prove my point in the frog story. The MEN who founded this
> country would be turning over in their graves were they to see what
> sniveling serfs most of the citizens have allowed themselves to become
> as they kneel before their gvt and beg for their "privileges". The
> RIGHTS not expressly granted to the Fed gvt nor reserved to the states
> are the PEOPLE. Too bad no one cares anymore.

Ah. In other words, you have no answer. You want to scream and pull your
hair about how the Man is trampling over your precious Rights, but you don't
know what precious Rights the Man is trampling.

Me, I don't trust this whole internets thing. Just look at the one entity -
Google. What an incredible undertaking it is to gather and retain all
available information on all available users. Every post you've ever made is
kept, just in case it can be used against you in the future. Now they entice
you with gigabytes of storage, just to be able to track and file away your
email. They dangle huge megabytes of online storage in front of you, hoping
that you'll store your personal files in there, so that they can keep copies
of everything.

If you want to invent conspiracies, start there!

dwight
www.tfrog93.com

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it's anything like Arizona law it's a purposely obtuse wording to
> make you think that way because the gvt wants you to think you are
> their serf.

I'm sorry... too many words.

Are you going to argue that "driving is a right" because it's too
ridiculously easy to get a driver's license?

Are you going to make that argument before a bunch of posters who have
COMPLAINED previously about how ridiculously easy it is to get a driver's
license?

Regardless... Us serfs have to "ask" for a driver's license. The Big Brother
usually "grants" our request, so long as we are not overtly retarded and/or
have been punished for our transgressions against the Man in the past (i.e.:
felony). And, so long as we play nice in Big Brother's sandbox and get along
with all the other serfs, we are allowed to keep that driver's license.

If driving were a "right", we could all become New York drivers, the roads
would become MadMax territory, and there would be no recourse, nothing we
could do about it, and the police (state or local) would not be able to set
up their bimonthly collection plates (speed traps).

The more I think about it, the more UTTERLY SATISFIED I am with the idea
that driving should be a privilege.

dwight
www.tfrog93.com

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 05:50:31 GMT, "BradandBrooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:38:48 GMT, "Antique Muscle" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro
>>>>after
>>>>he totaled it out. This is not so that I can punish him, is was so that
>>>>I
>>>>could prove to those dumbass cops that he wasn't horsing around when he
>>>>was
>>>>almost killed by a hit and run driver. The cops in this case just
>>>>assumed
>>>>that he was acting out because 1. he was a teenager 2. he was in a red
>>>>Camaro, 3. he had two girls in the car. I was able to take evidence
>>>>back
>>>>to
>>>>them to show that he was forced off the road and that their police
>>>>report
>>>>made no sense at all. In fact, it was impossible for the car to do what
>>>>he
>>>>says it would do in the police report. They were still not willing to
>>>>change the report. I have has other similar experiences. You see, in
>>>>cases
>>>>like these, these event recorders expose the truth. The truth, should
>>>>never
>>>>be an issue.
>>>>
>>>>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the
>>>>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident,
>>>>you
>>>>caused an accident...period. This is an investigative tool not an
>>>>invasion
>>>>of privacy, that is why it's limited to 20 seconds. Since it's only
>>>>recording automobile conditions, presumably on public streets, there is
>>>>no
>>>>expectation of privacy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since it's YOUR car you should have the right to have or not have the
>>> device. When you are on public streets would you agree that if the
>>> gvt wanted to they could make you run around naked because "presumably
>>> on public streets, there is no expectation of privacy."
>>>
>>> You sound like just another sheep....
>>>
>>
>>No, it's called a 'social contract'... just like it's your body, I can't
>>just walk over and beat the f**k out of you (as much as I'd like)...I
>>agree
>>to a social contract that says I can't do that if I want to live in this
>>society. If you agree to drive on public roads, you agree to the conduct
>>set down by society, in this case, gov't, acting on behalf of the people.
>>You don't like it, get off the public roads and build your own set of
>>roads
>>where you alone can dictate what is acceptable behaviour. Doesn't mean
>>these
>>things are 'right', just that when you are on public roads you agree to
>>their use if you drive a car that has one. Don't want one, buy a 1967
>>Mustang.
>>
>>B
>>
>
> Social contracts don't over rule the constitution. Unfortunately,
> ignorant courts sometimes do, and ignorant legislators often do. If
> you are capable of reading then you can read and pretty much
> understand what the constitution provides in the way of rights. It is
> very restrictive in what it allows the federal gvt to do, delineates a
> few things that the states have the right to do, and reserves all
> other rights to the citizens/the people.

There's a concentric circle at work here...

As to you in your home, there should be no encroachment. You should be able
to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (within reason, of
course). Because SOME folks took things a little too far, you cannot host
beer parties for minors or show gay porn movies to the local young lads. As
time goes on, I'm sure MORE folks will screw up and there will be MORE
things we are no longer able to do behind closed doors.

As the circle expands, it includes relations between you and your neighbors.
Now, I'm sorry to report that SOME folks out there had problems with their
neighbors that could not be resolved in a gentlemanly fashion, so the courts
had to be involved. Today, we have an entire system of agreements that
relate to you and your neighbors, and what rights and responsibilities you
share.

The circle expands to your neighborhood, and tries to encompass the whole
struggle of "individual rights v. concerns of the public." It is this
struggle that probably creates most of the "problems" you see with the
courts and legislature.

Social contracts (or the millions of rules and rulings that govern the way
we interact with each other) are an attempt to MAKE SENSE out of the human
condition. When most people complain about the "ignorant courts" (?), it's
usually because the courts try to consider MY concerns vs. YOURS. When it's
the other way around, hey, no complaints.

So, as you step outside your Castle and prepare to mount your Steed, please
remember that (thanks to the millions of folks before you who SCREWED THINGS
UP), the more distance between you and your front door, the more "ignorant
rules" you have to face...

Here's another thought: the U.S. Constitution (long may it wave) was not the
END of the process. You cannot selectively ignore over 200 years of
jurisprudence, two centuries in which the three bodies of our government
have struggled to apply the "roadmap" to a growing country, a growing
population, a growing demographic, a growing body of ethics, a growing
technology, and on and on and on.

The Constitution is not the Bible (although, talk about a book overly
subject to interpretation...). The Constitution didn't end with the period
on that particular piece of paper. The Bill of Rights was added, and then
every subsequent law and ruling was and is added to it, up to and including
today. In this sense, the Constitution is a living, breathing document,
subject to rewrite and revision according to the needs of the times.

And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things
differently...

dwight
www.tfrog93.com

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO
> reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a
> license,

Uhhh, no. Nowhere at any time was it ever decided that anyone has a right to
a driving license.

> the gvt MUST issue you a licence, subject to a few trivial
> hoops to jump thru. Do you have kids (or were you a kid)? Think
> about how kids really do just have privileges and very few rights,
> their parents can withhold those privileges for any reason or no
> reason, the kids don't have a "right" to much of anything other then
> not to be abused. Is that how you view your relationship to the
> gvt????

Again, just because it's too easy to GET a license does not translate into a
RIGHT.

And, please remember, rules and regulations are a two-way street. Just as my
privileges have been abridged through innumerable regulations, so, too, has
the government's own authority been restricted. It's all about trying to
keep the playing field level.

The war on your personal rights has seen far greater gains than just a
little black box in the past few years. And those are gains into your ACTUAL
rights, not just perceived rights. That box is the least of your worries
right now.

dwight
www.tfrog93.com

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:11:18 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>>
>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things
>>differently...
>>
>
> Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other things
> you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely privileges
> allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from driving, what
> other things are you allowed to do not because you have a right to do
> them but merely because your gvt has seen fit to allow you the
> privilege of doing them? And that at any time the gvt can simply take
> away that privilege and you have no recourse.
>
> Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a
> legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no legal
> basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt has decided,
> not because you have any inherent right to drive, but merely decided
> that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and allow you to drive.
> Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none of us ought to be
> allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be perfectly agreeable to that
> because you have already accepted that you have no right to drive and
> only do so at the sufferance of your gvt. Are you really that much a
> sheep?

Baaaaaa.

You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us the
right to operate a motor vehicle...

dwight
www.tfrog93.com

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:42:00 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>> If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO
>>> reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a
>>> license,
>>
>>Uhhh, no. Nowhere at any time was it ever decided that anyone has a right
>>to
>>a driving license.
>>
>>> the gvt MUST issue you a licence, subject to a few trivial
>>> hoops to jump thru. Do you have kids (or were you a kid)? Think
>>> about how kids really do just have privileges and very few rights,
>>> their parents can withhold those privileges for any reason or no
>>> reason, the kids don't have a "right" to much of anything other then
>>> not to be abused. Is that how you view your relationship to the
>>> gvt????
>>
>>Again, just because it's too easy to GET a license does not translate into
>>a
>>RIGHT.
>>
>>And, please remember, rules and regulations are a two-way street. Just as
>>my
>>privileges have been abridged through innumerable regulations, so, too,
>>has
>>the government's own authority been restricted. It's all about trying to
>>keep the playing field level.
>>
>>The war on your personal rights has seen far greater gains than just a
>>little black box in the past few years. And those are gains into your
>>ACTUAL
>>rights, not just perceived rights. That box is the least of your worries
>>right now.
>>
>>dwight
>>www.tfrog93.com
>>
>
>
> You never answered the question that I think would be most
> interesting. What OTHER privileges do you enjoy at the pleasure of
> your gvt. Things that the gvt can simply wave their hand and make you
> stop doing? Anything of similar significance as your right to travel
> freely by driving your self around?

The so-called Right to Privacy. There's one that went away with a simple
governmental wave of hand. And I would consider that of more importance.

dwight

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:45:17 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:11:18 -0400, "dwight" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things
>>>>differently...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other things
>>> you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely privileges
>>> allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from driving, what
>>> other things are you allowed to do not because you have a right to do
>>> them but merely because your gvt has seen fit to allow you the
>>> privilege of doing them? And that at any time the gvt can simply take
>>> away that privilege and you have no recourse.
>>>
>>> Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a
>>> legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no legal
>>> basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt has decided,
>>> not because you have any inherent right to drive, but merely decided
>>> that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and allow you to drive.
>>> Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none of us ought to be
>>> allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be perfectly agreeable to that
>>> because you have already accepted that you have no right to drive and
>>> only do so at the sufferance of your gvt. Are you really that much a
>>> sheep?
>>
>>Baaaaaa.
>>
>>You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us the
>>right to operate a motor vehicle...
>>
>>dwight
>>www.tfrog93.com
>>
>
> Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt
> specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some other
> powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers not
> granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the people.
> Since driving is not listed in the constitution as something the Fed
> gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as something the state gvts
> are in control of, it therefore becomes one of the MANY rights that
> simply flow to the citizens. Now don't get all tied up in the fact
> that we have to put some rules in place to prevent chaos, that's just
> housekeeping.
>
> Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship
> to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and
> deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these
> personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING
> by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt
> agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to see
> a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen you
> would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right to
> drive.
>
> Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but that
> you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like eat
> catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you think all
> those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT to do but
> are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving you
> the privilege.

How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear of
any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement.

Hah! Got ya.

dwight

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:45:17 -0400, "dwight" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:11:18 -0400, "dwight" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things
>>>>>differently...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other things
>>>> you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely privileges
>>>> allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from driving, what
>>>> other things are you allowed to do not because you have a right to
>>>> do them but merely because your gvt has seen fit to allow you the
>>>> privilege of doing them? And that at any time the gvt can simply
>>>> take away that privilege and you have no recourse.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a
>>>> legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no
>>>> legal basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt has
>>>> decided, not because you have any inherent right to drive, but
>>>> merely decided that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and allow
>>>> you to drive. Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none of us
>>>> ought to be allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be perfectly
>>>> agreeable to that because you have already accepted that you have
>>>> no right to drive and only do so at the sufferance of your gvt.
>>>> Are you really that much a sheep?
>>>
>>>Baaaaaa.
>>>
>>>You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us
>>>the right to operate a motor vehicle...
>>>
>>>dwight
>>>www.tfrog93.com
>>>
>>
>> Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt
>> specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some other
>> powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers not
>> granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the people.
>> Since driving is not listed in the constitution as something the Fed
>> gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as something the state gvts
>> are in control of, it therefore becomes one of the MANY rights that
>> simply flow to the citizens. Now don't get all tied up in the fact
>> that we have to put some rules in place to prevent chaos, that's just
>> housekeeping.
>>
>> Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship
>> to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and
>> deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these
>> personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING
>> by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt
>> agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to
>> see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen
>> you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no
>> right to drive.
>>
>> Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but
>> that you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like eat
>> catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you think
>> all those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT to do
>> but are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving
>> you the privilege.
>
> How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and
> clear of any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement.
>
> Hah! Got ya.
>
> dwight

Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering...

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:45:17 -0400, "dwight" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:11:18 -0400, "dwight" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things
>>>>>>differently...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other things
>>>>> you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely privileges
>>>>> allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from driving, what
>>>>> other things are you allowed to do not because you have a right to
>>>>> do them but merely because your gvt has seen fit to allow you the
>>>>> privilege of doing them? And that at any time the gvt can simply
>>>>> take away that privilege and you have no recourse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a
>>>>> legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no
>>>>> legal basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt has
>>>>> decided, not because you have any inherent right to drive, but
>>>>> merely decided that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and allow
>>>>> you to drive. Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none of us
>>>>> ought to be allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be perfectly
>>>>> agreeable to that because you have already accepted that you have
>>>>> no right to drive and only do so at the sufferance of your gvt.
>>>>> Are you really that much a sheep?
>>>>
>>>>Baaaaaa.
>>>>
>>>>You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us
>>>>the right to operate a motor vehicle...
>>>>
>>>>dwight
>>>>www.tfrog93.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt
>>> specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some other
>>> powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers not
>>> granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the people.
>>> Since driving is not listed in the constitution as something the Fed
>>> gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as something the state gvts
>>> are in control of, it therefore becomes one of the MANY rights that
>>> simply flow to the citizens. Now don't get all tied up in the fact
>>> that we have to put some rules in place to prevent chaos, that's just
>>> housekeeping.
>>>
>>> Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship
>>> to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and
>>> deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these
>>> personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING
>>> by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt
>>> agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to
>>> see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen
>>> you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no
>>> right to drive.
>>>
>>> Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but
>>> that you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like eat
>>> catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you think
>>> all those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT to do
>>> but are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving
>>> you the privilege.
>>
>> How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and
>> clear of any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement.
>>
>> Hah! Got ya.
>>
>> dwight
>
> Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering...

That probably fits under "Right to Life," which, as you know, is still being
discussed.

Breathing was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it passes
to the State. The States haven't yet regulated breathing, itself, so the
local municipalities have the ball.

WHAT you breathe has, indeed, been regulated, and where you exhale and how
it impacts those around you is being legislated more and more every day.

So, while you still maintain the right to breathe, it is not entirely
unregulated.

dwight

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:45:17 -0400, "dwight" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:11:18 -0400, "dwight" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see
>>>>>>>things differently...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other
>>>>>> things you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely
>>>>>> privileges allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from
>>>>>> driving, what other things are you allowed to do not because you
>>>>>> have a right to do them but merely because your gvt has seen fit
>>>>>> to allow you the privilege of doing them? And that at any time
>>>>>> the gvt can simply take away that privilege and you have no
>>>>>> recourse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a
>>>>>> legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no
>>>>>> legal basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt
>>>>>> has decided, not because you have any inherent right to drive,
>>>>>> but merely decided that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and
>>>>>> allow you to drive. Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none
>>>>>> of us ought to be allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be
>>>>>> perfectly agreeable to that because you have already accepted
>>>>>> that you have no right to drive and only do so at the sufferance
>>>>>> of your gvt. Are you really that much a sheep?
>>>>>
>>>>>Baaaaaa.
>>>>>
>>>>>You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of
>>>>>us the right to operate a motor vehicle...
>>>>>
>>>>>dwight
>>>>>www.tfrog93.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt
>>>> specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some
>>>> other powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers
>>>> not granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the
>>>> people. Since driving is not listed in the constitution as
>>>> something the Fed gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as
>>>> something the state gvts are in control of, it therefore becomes
>>>> one of the MANY rights that simply flow to the citizens. Now don't
>>>> get all tied up in the fact that we have to put some rules in place
>>>> to prevent chaos, that's just housekeeping.
>>>>
>>>> Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your
>>>> relationship to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt
>>>> just up and deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of
>>>> all these personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO
>>>> MORE DRIVING by anyone except police and some other specifically
>>>> designated gvt agents. Since you keep saying driving is a
>>>> privilege, I'd like to see a clear statement from you that should
>>>> that scenario ever happen you would be cool with it because, as you
>>>> have said, YOU have no right to drive.
>>>>
>>>> Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but
>>>> that you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like
>>>> eat catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you
>>>> think all those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT
>>>> to do but are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the
>>>> gvt giving you the privilege.
>>>
>>> How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and
>>> clear of any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement.
>>>
>>> Hah! Got ya.
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>> Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering...
>
> That probably fits under "Right to Life," which, as you know, is still
> being discussed.
>
> Breathing was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it
> passes to the State. The States haven't yet regulated breathing,
> itself, so the local municipalities have the ball.
>
> WHAT you breathe has, indeed, been regulated, and where you exhale and
> how it impacts those around you is being legislated more and more
> every day.
>
> So, while you still maintain the right to breathe, it is not entirely
> unregulated.
>
> dwight

Well that kinda sucks, eh?