Don't Read UNLESS You Want to be Pissed Off

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by aperrego
Cannot and should not be a right.. YOU CANNOT REVOKE SOMEONES RIGHTS! You can revoke someones priviledges..

Example: Drunk driver just kills someone.. It is his right to drive...so it is ok for him to just keep on driving..?!?!?!

Driving should be a right, but when a drunk driver kills someone, that right should be revoked.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by killerb
gnx guy that was an ignorant statement you made. just because she is muslim does not mean she is involved in terrorism.are we looking at all christians after Tim Mc veih blew up that building and killed all those people?go after terrorism not religion.my sister is a muslim and she is far from a terrorist!

Not sure what post you're referring to but you're presenting a very polarized view.

For example; I start religion X. Religion X believes everyone should wear ski masks in public. I DEMAND my driver's license photo be taken wearing my ski mask. I ask you this; WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? This is a NON-RELIGIOUS issue. People want to drag religion into it to make it debatable. Not the case. It doesn't matter if terrorists ARE muslim in which SOME practice the tradition of women covering their faces in public...so what. It's a totally seperate issue from that of the state requiring photo ID from ANYONE who wishes to drive a motor vehicle on public roads....end of story. Live with or walk, or ride a bike. You can excercise your religion as you're peddaling down the sidewalk.

You're forgetting driving is a privelege and not a right. I'd be different if the state said every muslim woman must show her fact but that doesn't say that. It says "full frontal photo exposing the face"....no exception for religious practices or sex. Rebuttal please????

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by TurboTer
I am not opposed to changing as we progress. I am a big fan of technology, and look foward to what the future could bring. I just oppose monitoring by the federal government. I realize there is more of a threat of terror than, let's say, 30 years ago, but I am not gonna blow up anything (well, maybe an M-80 or two on the Fourth of July, but that's it), so I don't think I should be watched. Do you support fingerprinting on drivers licenses? Some states are gonna require it.

I sent you a private email to debate off topic. As I wrote you debate well and have interesting views.


Back on topic. You never responded to any of my points, which I believe are hard to debate. As soon as you do I'll respond in kind to yours.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by TurboTer
Driving should be a right, but when a drunk driver kills someone, that right should be revoked.

Perhaps in your opinion is "should" but you're obviously a strict interpretor of the Constitution. What amenedment, US Supreme Court or US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling does the "right to drive" come from? I don't know of any. And in fact it's a "states rights" issue and a non-federal one. This is clear since as already stated the Constitution states "those rights not specifically enumerated in these Bill fo Rights are reserved to the states OR to the people". Just as in federal law, if it's not covered it's up to the states' to regulate and if not there then it's up to the people.

TurboTer, I know you're young and have idealistic values but you need to really study government in deatail and see how it works in depth. We have what's called a "strong central government" type of setup governed by the US Constitution, then State Constitutions then local governments. If your enumerated rights aren't violated in the listed documents from top-bottom then you're SOL unless you get an amenedment passed which as you know requires 2/3 of the federal house and senate then 3/4 of the state legislatures (not referrendums) to ratify. This is all from memory and is government 102.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
I sent you a private email to debate off topic. As I wrote you debate well and have interesting views.


Back on topic. You never responded to any of my points, which I believe are hard to debate. As soon as you do I'll respond in kind to yours.

I didn't get your e-mail. Did you send it to terry-action@si.rr.com?

Sorry if I didn't respond to everything. As I look back at your post, you wrote about states rights. Well, I am a HUGE fan of states rights. Everything not in the Constitution needs to be up to the states to decide. Sorry to say it, but the 10th Amendment is probably the most ignored of all Amendments. Almost all of these federal laws passed are illegal and should be thrown out. Sad to say, the Constitution is not being enforced by the Supreme Court. I respected Antonin Scalia the most, but even he let me down last month.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Perhaps in your opinion is "should" but you're obviously a strict interpretor of the Constitution. What amenedment, US Supreme Court or US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling does the "right to drive" come from? I don't know of any. And in fact it's a "states rights" issue and a non-federal one. This is clear since as already stated the Constitution states "those rights not specifically enumerated in this docmument are reserved to the states OR to the people". Just as in federal law, if it's not covered it's up to the states' to regulate and if not there then it's up to the people.

TurboTer, I know you're young and have idealistic values but you need to really study government in deatail and see how it works in depth. We have what's called a "strong central government" type of setup governed by the US Constitution, then State Constitutions then local governments. If your enumerated rights aren't violated in the listed documents from top-bottom then you're SOL unless you get an amenedment passed which as you know requires 2/3 of the federal house and senate then 3/4 of the state legislatures (not referrendums) to ratify. This is all from memory and is government 102.

There is no Amendment that says driving is a right, so you are correct on that matter. I also don't want there to be a "Right To Drive" amendment, as the Constitution would be cluttered. However, I'm sure we would all agree that flying a kite is a right. So is walking down the street. So is riding a bike (although that won't be a right for long, as the government has already started with forced helmet laws in some states). So why not driving a car? Why do states make things more difficult every year for the people, as opposed to making it easier? Examples? Why are some states moving foward to raise the driving age from 17 to 18? Why did NY make the driving test harder to pass in 1997 or 1998)? Can't you people see it? The government is abusing us and chipping away at our rights at an alarming rate. This all goes way beyond the original topic of that woman's pic on her license. My message board should be up and running (heavily political) by next week, and I really hope to see you there. You are a neo-conservative tried and true, but you are still better than a liberal.

Oh yeah, I'm not really that young. I'm 30. 10 years ago, when I first started going online on GEnie, someone said I was young and idealistic too, and that I would change. Believe it or not, I have my posts saved from back then and I was much more of a firebrand. It was full of liberals and was I hated over there!

 

[TurboJunky]

I agree that rights are slowly being chipped away and don't agree with that. There's so many laws on the books there's specific lawyers for certain issues, it's mayhem.

However, I'm sure we would all agree that flying a kite is a right. So is walking down the street. So is riding a bike (although that won't be a right for long, as the government has already started with forced helmet laws in some states). So why not driving a car?

If you read any of your Constitutions there isn't a "right" to fly a kite however some could argue it could be an extension of free speech. It'd be ludricous to pass a law outlawing kite flying but some states have some zany laws. Michigan in fact has a law on the books outlawing cussing in front of women and children. Is it free speech, maybe, but the Michigan Supreme Court feels otherwise as the law was recently challened - and uphled.

As far as states ability to pass laws regulating behavior it comes down to a public safety issue. An example are states', cities and townships' ability to issue permits (licenses) for public assembly and protest which is specifically outlined as a right in the Constitution. The US Supreme Court weighed the RIGHT to protest against that of public safety issues and found in favor of regulation in leiu of public safety.

You compare certain daily activities as "rights" but I don't think you realize how many activities are regulated such as hunting, health care, fishing and voting (another Constitutional right). These have all been upheld as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court and top state courts. Imagine NO regulation on any of these issues...talk about chaos.

BTW, I sent you an email....

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by TurboTer
I say shoot him.

Ok, but I'd like to know why you feel the woman should be able to have her photo disguised on a Florida driver's license but you avoided the issue whether that guy should?

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by TurboTer
I didn't get your e-mail. Did you send it to terry-action@si.rr.com?

Sorry if I didn't respond to everything. As I look back at your post, you wrote about states rights. Well, I am a HUGE fan of states rights. Everything not in the Constitution needs to be up to the states to decide. Sorry to say it, but the 10th Amendment is probably the most ignored of all Amendments. Almost all of these federal laws passed are illegal and should be thrown out. Sad to say, the Constitution is not being enforced by the Supreme Court. I respected Antonin Scalia the most, but even he let me down last month.

Yup, sure did. I can re-send it if need be.

 

[gn85]

Kicking myself for jumping in...

Sorry to jump in the middle of this, but I just wanted to first tip my hat to both of you for the fine 'discussion'. Of course, I'm not on TurboTer's side of this and I've been applauding the points that are being made by TT/A 1233. But I just felt I wanted to be represented.

TurboTer, your comments about "can't everybody see that they're taking our rights away." I suppose I can understand where you are coming from. Yes, there is a line that can not be crossed by the government when it comes to our personal liberties. I really feel that the line we're talking about won't be crossed any time soon. When it does... please right me a message. But in these cases, TT/A is correct. There's a funny line between 'rights' and 'priviledges'. When it's a matter of public safety, yes those 'priviledges' are reviewed. Should they take our guns... NO. Do we need rocket launchers in our homes.. NO. I feel the same as you do... they are trying to chip away at that. I pray they never get that far. To have a gun IS our right and the day we lose it WILL be the day I agree with you. But the case of the woman in the veil... that's a matter of public safety. TT/A has already made that point so I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I just disagree with your idea of what is your 'right' and what is a 'priviledge'. If you were to have a kite.. yes, you have the priviledge to fly... if you are standing 50 ft. from the end of a runway at an international airport.. should you have the RIGHT to endanger 500 people on an airline because the engine sucks in your kite?? YES THAT'S PETTY and a stupid example. But it proves my point. Yes, there is a time and place for everything. This woman wanting to wear a veil is her right. But her having a driver's license w/o a picture is NOT. It is a matter of public safety. As far as fingerprints and such... I guess I don't care because I know the state government and I'm sure the federal already have mine on file. But you're right.. there is a point at which they will go to far. Me personally I have nothing to hide.

OK.. back to kicking myself.

 

[BLACK Ttype]

excellent discussion!!!

 

[RealFastV6]

The Constitution was supposed to protect us against these things as well...

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/76958.htm
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/76997.htm
http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000045.htm
http://www.nysrpa.org/pressreleases.htm
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.fbi29may29,0,3392881.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm

...but since it doesn't do that anymore, what makes someone think it'll protect them from having to submit to photo identification in order to drive their own vehicle on publicly owned roads?

Simply put, the constitution does not protect people from having to comply with their state governments. She should indeed have to remove the vail to comply with the law.

All Hail Fatherland Security.

 

[TurboJunky]

TurboTer I wonder why you're not rebutting any of my points? If you can't or won't just say so, but I think I've made some pretty good arguments which are hard to debate.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by RealFastV6
The Constitution was supposed to protect us against these things as well...

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/76958.htm
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/76997.htm
http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000045.htm
http://www.nysrpa.org/pressreleases.htm
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.fbi29may29,0,3392881.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm

...but since it doesn't do that anymore, what makes someone think it'll protect them from having to submit to photo identification in order to drive their own vehicle on publicly owned roads?

Simply put, the constitution does not protect people from having to comply with their state governments. She should indeed have to remove the vail to comply with the law.

All Hail Fatherland Security.

Interesting articles. One says:

Yet there is something to be said for the Fourth Amendment’s historic provision for the “knock and announce” protocol that gave rise to the clichéd “open up, it’s the police” scene used in every cop movie.

however the 4the Amendment doesn't have any such provision which makes one wonder about the writer. It says exactly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does anyone read a passage regarding "knock and announce" in the 4th Amendment?

This is an entertaining thread....

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
I agree that rights are slowly being chipped away and don't agree with that. There's so many laws on the books there's specific lawyers for certain issues, it's mayhem.

If you read any of your Constitutions there isn't a "right" to fly a kite however some could argue it could be an extension of free speech. It'd be ludricous to pass a law outlawing kite flying but some states have some zany laws. Michigan in fact has a law on the books outlawing cussing in front of women and children. Is it free speech, maybe, but the Michigan Supreme Court feels otherwise as the law was recently challened - and uphled.

As far as states ability to pass laws regulating behavior it comes down to a public safety issue. An example are states', cities and townships' ability to issue permits (licenses) for public assembly and protest which is specifically outlined as a right in the Constitution. The US Supreme Court weighed the RIGHT to protest against that of public safety issues and found in favor of regulation in leiu of public safety.

You compare certain daily activities as "rights" but I don't think you realize how many activities are regulated such as hunting, health care, fishing and voting (another Constitutional right). These have all been upheld as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court and top state courts. Imagine NO regulation on any of these issues...talk about chaos.

BTW, I sent you an email....

I unerstand that even the things in the Constitution aren't absolute. You shouldn't be able to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, yet I support the 1st Amendment. You should be able to buy a fully loaded and operational army tank, yet I support the 2nd. Getting back to kite flying, I also see your point that flying a kite and driving a car are two different things. One presents no danger, while the other can kill others if abused. But do we really need forced pictures on licenses? Do we really need auto insurance, which has gotten put of hand in my state?

No regulation on certain things does equal chaos. But many things are being overly reggulated. Do you realize that me living in NYC, with NO criminal record, still has to wait a full six months to get a handgun? And once I can get a license, it has to be in my home, as carry permits are next to impossible for the average Joe here. You can't even smoke in any bars anymore in NYC. It's out of control here.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Ok, but I'd like to know why you feel the woman should be able to have her photo disguised on a Florida driver's license but you avoided the issue whether that guy should?

I think everyone should have the option of a photo on their license, not just her. As for that guy, he is a terrorist. He had bombs strapped to himself.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Yup, sure did. I can re-send it if need be.

I got it last night, and I will reply when I get home from work tonight.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by RealFastV6
The Constitution was supposed to protect us against these things as well...

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/76958.htm
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/76997.htm
http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000045.htm
http://www.nysrpa.org/pressreleases.htm
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.fbi29may29,0,3392881.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm

...but since it doesn't do that anymore, what makes someone think it'll protect them from having to submit to photo identification in order to drive their own vehicle on publicly owned roads?

Simply put, the constitution does not protect people from having to comply with their state governments. She should indeed have to remove the vail to comply with the law.

All Hail Fatherland Security.

NYC gun laws are absurd. If the US Supreme Court had any sense they would strike down those laws as un-Constitutional, as they clearly are.

 

[TurboTer]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
TurboTer I wonder why you're not rebutting any of my points? If you can't or won't just say so, but I think I've made some pretty good arguments which are hard to debate.

Patience!

 

[TurboJunky]

I see exactly where you're coming from. I fully support the law abiding citizen being able to purchase and carry a firearm as long as they haven't been criminally insane, have no felony convictions, take and pass a firearm safety course (for obvious reasons) and pass a firearm proficiency exam. This has passed in Michigan recently and the naysayers who claim "chaos" will ensue simply hasn't happened. I feel safer having good citizens carrying firearms for my personal sake.

I feel the average Joe has and excercises a great deal of personal responsibility, we are in fact adults. If you can fight, die and kill for our country then you should be able to have a drink and buy and carry a firearm. There's always exceptions but that's what happenes in a free society. You can't legislate responisibility, but you can legislate accountability.

As far as the photo driver's license, I go back to the premise that ANYONE could use a non-photo driver's license and pass themselves off as you. You must agree with that statement. A photo isn't a Constitutionally protected right, it isn't an "unreasonable search and seizure". I'll use the example that someone smashes into your GN and you exchange info. He/she presents a non-photo driver's license and it proves all the info is false, then what? You don't agree with insurance and opt not to have any...now you're screwed. At least with a photo ID you'll be able to verify the person presenting the ID is actaully the one ON the ID. Law enforcement must have the same ability.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a solid advocate of personal rights and freedoms. When I'm working, I always err on the side of caution to protect everyone's Constitutional rights.

Mistakes are made every day, cops are human beings and aren't exempt. No ones perfect. Just think of the people you've worked with, how many were jerks, loudmouths or didn't give a hoot about anything. Departments try to screen out those types but some squeak through. Don't judge everyone by the actions of a few.