• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The way that the Second Amendment should be

stephpd

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
191
Location
Claymont, Delaware, USA
imported post

Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs

You can be trusted.

I'd preferr that these crime control problems be posted on my other thread on this page.

Let's leave this for just the Second Amendment.

Thanks!
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

stephpd wrote:
Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs
Funny you should say that; before licensing, the ability to drive WAS considered a right. If you had the money to buy the car, off you went. It was considered a liberty; if you can't get from place to place you are being restricted. It's only now that there are other valid feasible ways to get from place to place that driving is considered a "privilege". Crimes like drunk driving were crimes, but you posted bail, got back in your car and drove home. No, there's no constitutional right to drive. There is a fundamental right to liberty. If the government tells you you cannot drive, they are reducing your liberty.
 

stephpd

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
191
Location
Claymont, Delaware, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
stephpd wrote:
Forth drunk driving- licence revoked with first offence.
It's a privilege, not a right. Driving with license revoked 5 yrs. Second dui felony-20 yrs
Funny you should say that; before licensing, the ability to drive WAS considered a right. If you had the money to buy the car, off you went. It was considered a liberty; if you can't get from place to place you are being restricted. It's only now that there are other valid feasible ways to get from place to place that driving is considered a "privilege". Crimes like drunk driving were crimes, but you posted bail, got back in your car and drove home. No, there's no constitutional right to drive. There is a fundamental right to liberty. If the government tells you you cannot drive, they are reducing your liberty.
Please put all crime control posts on the other thread.
Please!
 
Top