Into the Night
Verified User
Just another example that the government doesn't care about the Constitution that defines it.
Government wants to install SPEED LIMITERS in cars.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Just another example that the government doesn't care about the Constitution that defines it.
Into the Night
Verified User
The false dichotomy fallacy is among their favorites. Their absolute favorite fallacy is the inversion fallacy (projecting their own problems on others), or a contextomy fallacy (taking snippets out of context and building and entire fake narrative by it).
Then, of course, are the insult fallacies, but I'm not counting those, since they don't even attempt to convey an argument (invalid as they are).
That is just not true. 3,191 deaths happen on local urban roads, out of 42,939 deaths. That is 7%, and not the most.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison#where-crashes-occur
The Supreme Court has never found an absolute right to travel. If they did, I would have the right to travel into your house. The government has a clear right to regulate travel over its property, as does anyone else.
So once again, you do not have the Constitutional right to drive drunk without a license. Or more accurately, you do not have that right on government roads. You may well have that right on your own road.
Into the Night
Verified User
Misquoting your source isn't going to work. A good 60% of deaths happened on urban roads in 2021. Typically a vehicle-pedestrian or vehicle-bicycle accident. Guess which one is killed?
Also, while deaths caused by drunk driving has gone down (about 30% of them now), the deaths caused by drugged driving has gone very definitely up.
You really should read your own sources before linking to them.
Into the Night
Verified User
Rights do not come from the Supreme Court.
Rights do not come from the Supreme Court.
'Regulate' does not mean 'ban'. Redefinition fallacy.
Rights do not come from the Constitution.
And typically, you go for extreme argument fallacies.
The right to travel is inherent.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ROFL, extreme hyperbolic bullshit, but I get that you leftist idiots have to resort to it in order to 'feel' like you're right.
again, hyperbolic bullshit. I'm discussing the unconstitutional 'requirement' for a license to travel via certain means and you're bringing up drunk driving. apples and oranges.
now, would you like to discuss the issue logically or would you like to continue resorting to idiocy?
You think it is unconstitutional to require a drivers license, and that everyone should be allowed to drive(if they so choose). I guess that would apply to a pilots license too. We have given up control of the air over our property under the understanding that the government would keep it safe, but I guess that was unconstitutional according to you.
Find a court, any court, that agrees with you.
But if we all have an absolute right to drive on roads, then wouldn't we have a right to drive while drunk?
Yakuda
Verified User
This is in preparation for when that time in the near future where the govt will only allow EVs. Then they will be able to regulate the flow of electricity thereby limiting how often, how long and how much you can drive let alone how fast you drive. Since fossil fuels will still be needed to produce the electricity to power the EVs the govt will restrict the use of electricity under the guise of battling the climate "crisis".
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you seem to think that the government has authority to control anything and everything if 'safety' is their objective. You are aware of how the founders viewed the commerce clause? If 'we' gave up control of our rights to government so that they could keep us safe, why are they not held accountable or liable for their failure to do so?
fallacy of appeal to authority. fallback to the courts is indicative of your weak argument. you need some other entity to back you up because you're not smart enough.
again, extremist hyperbole. another failure fallback of those who need to feel right. that any 'right' must be taken as a right that anything can be done with it, and we all know that simply isn't the case, but it's your failing argument, not mine.
Actually, I am saying the government has the right to regulate their own roads, much like they can regulate who can enter their own military bases. You can drive without a license on your own property, but on government owned property the government has the right to make the rules.
Have you seen the videos of these sovereign citizens when they get pulled over for not having a drivers license: a lot of whining and crying.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
first off, they are NOT the governments roads, they belong to the people. secondly, I've ALWAYS said that they can regulate the roadways.......the ROADWAYS, i.e. speed limits, number of lanes, direction of travel, etc. what they can NOT do is regulate who can travel on the roadways, unless that travel involves COMMERCE>
again, the government does not OWN the roads. they are the property of the people. the government has authority to make rules that make travel orderly, but not rules to decide who gets to travel on them and by what means.
again, appeal to authority fallacy.
how does a government get to deny someones rights without punishment? the people let them.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
1. The internet is a huge place, but STY by himself manages to say some of the most stupid things on it.
2. The entire concept of law is based on individuals choosing to cede authority on certain matters
to their collective government.
It is a choice for order over chaos.
When totally incompatible people are forced to share then same government,
that's when conflict occurs.
Totally incomparable people attempting to share the same government
is, unfortunately, almost the very definition of America.
We were the experiment that proved multi-culturalism doesn't work,
but once you have it, it's almost impossible to do anything about it.
2. The entire concept of law is based on individuals choosing to cede authority on certain matters
to their collective government.
It is a choice for order over chaos.
When totally incompatible people are forced to share then same government,
that's when conflict occurs.
Totally incomparable people attempting to share the same government
is, unfortunately, almost the very definition of America.
We were the experiment that proved multi-culturalism doesn't work,
but once you have it, it's almost impossible to do anything about it.
Into the Night
Verified User
The government is REQUIRED to provide a license to drive or fly as long as you are found capable of understanding the laws of the road or the air, and as long as you are physically capable.
The government CANNOT ban you from traveling or deny a license just because it doesn't like you for some political reason. They do NOT have any authority to require limiting devices of any kind.
You never had control over the air beyond 100 ft above your home.
Courts have NO jurisdiction over the Constitution.
The right to travel is an inherent right.
Into the Night
Verified User
War in the States will break out before that happens.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yakuda
Verified User
The leftists will bring their purses.
Yakuda
Verified User
The leftists will bring their purses.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're just butthurt that i'm smarter than you
this is wrong. the concept you're talking about is the Constitution. Laws are made within the framework of the Constitution.
we understand that you think people having rights is chaos and that you prefer totalitarianism/socialism.