No refusal dui check points in tn.

[sigmtnman]

Yes you did, I was responding to your statement about "mechanism of travel"; not the right to travel/movement.
 
Frankly, if I have a right to travel by motor vehicle then it obviously follows, then, that the government has a responsibility to provide me with a motor vehicle and not just any old motor vehicle but certainly at least something the equivalent of a Cadillac (which seems fitting since the fed owns GM anyway). ;)

 

 

 

That would also imply that they should give you feet and legs to travel by foot.  Or better yet, 40 acres and a mule....

[Chucktshoes]

Frankly, if I have a right to travel by motor vehicle then it obviously follows, then, that the government has a responsibility to provide me with a motor vehicle and not just any old motor vehicle but certainly at least something the equivalent of a Cadillac (which seems fitting since the fed owns GM anyway). ;)

This is quite a poor attempt to conflate the valid idea of a negative right to be free of action from the government to impede an individual's right of travel with the invalid idea of a positive right to be provided the means to travel. It is an extremely poorly constructed argument. You can do better than that, can't you? Edited September 3, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

People who wish to restrict gun ownership say that yes you have a right to own a gun, but not ARs, etc, etc, but that owning a .22 or a .20gau should be enough.  It is the same logic you are using to determine what is acceptable as a mode of travel....

 

Whether it's the "same logic" or not is immaterial; just because the logic is flawed in the case of the second amendment  doesn't mean it cant' be sound logic in another matter.

 

In the case of arms it's perfectly incorrect logic for reasons I'm sure everyone here knows and I won't bore people with by recounting it.  In the case of mode of travel, I think that logic is moot because there is no natural (and certainly no enumerated) right right to a specific method/mode of travel - arguing about which method is "good enough" is a non-issue.

 

However, let's assume, for the sake of discussion that "driving a motor vehicle" is a "right". So what if it is? ANY right can be taken away from a person, even up to and including the right to live at all. So, once someone has shown themselves to be an incompetent driver or has shown such a total lack of personal responsibility that they would drive under the influence, whether it's a "right" or a mere privileged, that person's freedom to drive a motor vehicle should be stripped from him/her.

Edited September 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Whether it's the "same logic" or not is immaterial. In the case of arms it's perfectly incorrect logic for reasons I'm sure everyone here knows and I won't bore people with by recounting it.

 

In the case of freedom of movement/travel there simply is no natural right or enumerated right to a specific method/mode of travel - claiming that there is doesn't make it so.  However, let's assume, for the sake of discussion that "driving a motor vehicle" is a "right". So what if it is? ANY right can be taken away from a person, even up to and including the right to live at all.

 

So, once someone has shown themselves to be an incompetent driver or has shown such a total lack of personal responsibility that they would drive under the influence, whether it's a "right" or a mere privileged, that person's freedom to drive a motor vehicle should be stripped from him/her.

 

Actually, the Supreme Court has said that the freedom of movement is a fundamental right under our Constitution.

 

If the logic is incorrect for the type of arm, it is incorrect for the type of movement.

[RobertNashville]

Actually, the Supreme Court has said that the freedom of movement is a fundamental right under our Constitution.

 

If the logic is incorrect for the type of arm, it is incorrect for the type of movement.

It doesn't matter if they have or haven't, I'm not and never have nor am I currently saying that freedom of movement/travel isn't a "right".

 

There still is no "right" to "drive a car" and courts, including the Supreme Court even as far back as the turn of the last century have upheld the government's right to regulate who can operate devices like motor vehicles (and planes and other dangerous equipment) and under what conditions they can operate them.

[tnguy]

But even so, there's a dividing line between regulating the use of equipment and impeding people going about their lawful business, especially since the police are not part of the legislative branch.

[DaveS]

But even so, there's a dividing line between regulating the use of equipment and impeding people going about their lawful business, especially since the police are not part of the legislative branch.

Sir, you can go about your business all you want. However, the state regulates how you do so in a car on their highways.

Has nothing to with Adams and Franklin and the constitution. They had no cars then...

Clarksville still has laws on the books since before the Civil War that say you must dismount your horse at the edge of the city and walk your horse to your destination. That law still stands. Where does it violate my constitutional rights if I ride my horse to town? Same with driving a car...

 

DaveS

[tnguy]

Is there a guy standing there to frisk you down when you dismount? Do you really fail to see what it is the people are objecting to?

[DaveS]

Is there a guy standing there to frisk you down when you dismount? Do you really fail to see what it is the people are objecting to?

No, to both questions. But, how many times have you been frisked down during a DUI stop? I've been involved in a few, and the only guy I remember ever getting "frisked down", had pot on the seat of his car. I hope I answered your question.

 

DaveS

[RobertNashville]

Is there a guy standing there to frisk you down when you dismount? Do you really fail to see what it is the people are objecting to?

If you are referring to DUI checkpoints (which has not even been the point of the discussion for at least the past two pages of this thread) then frankly, I don't care if people object or not.

 

We have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, its' because people refuse to be responsible and do the right thing and not drive if they've been drinking.

 

Everyone who has ever driven under the influence is part of the problem as is anyone who has ever let a friend do the same...those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve none and will receive no sympathy from me. As I said much earlier in this thread, those who do so are just as much a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

[sigmtnman]

It doesn't matter if they have or haven't, I'm not and never have nor am I currently saying that freedom of movement/travel isn't a "right".

 

There still is no "right" to "drive a car" and courts, including the Supreme Court even as far back as the turn of the last century have upheld the government's right to regulate who can operate devices like motor vehicles (and planes and other dangerous equipment) and under what conditions they can operate them.

 

 

Just like you have no right to "operate a SCAR-17". 

 

Are you going to tell me that they didn't think people had a right to ride their horses and draw their wagons down public thoroughfares without being unlawfully stoped and asked for papers giving them the right to "operate a horse" or "operate a horse(s)-drawn wagons"??

Edited September 4, 2013 by sigmtnman

[Chucktshoes]

Just like you have no right to "operate a SCAR-17".

Are you going to tell me that they didn't think people had a right to ride their horses and draw their wagons down public thoroughfares without being unlawfully stoped and asked for papers giving them the right to "operate a horse" or "operate a horse(s)-drawn wagons"??

I too anxiously await the answer to see which logical fallacy will be used next while declaring that is is totally different than the exact same argument the Brady Bunch use in their efforts. At this point it is just plain funny.

[RobertNashville]

Just like you have no right to "operate a SCAR-17". 

 

Are you going to tell me that they didn't think people had a right to ride their horses and draw their wagons down public thoroughfares without being unlawfully stoped and asked for papers giving them the right to "operate a horse" or "operate a horse(s)-drawn wagons"??

You've already made that argument. I understand your position; I don't agree and repeating it isn't going to change my mind.

 

Driving a motor veicle on public roadways is not a "right" (nor is any other particular form/method/mechanism of transport for that matter). As such, attempting to compare a method of transportation with the right to keep and bare arms is an apples and oranges comparison.

 

As far s your use of horses as comparrison goes, as DaveS already pointed out, laws regarding how/when/where/by whom people could travel by horseback/horse-drawn wagond, etc. have existed even long before the motor vehicle was invented; some examples are...

 

In Omega, New Mexico, every woman must "be found to be wearing a corset" when riding a horse in public. A physician is required to inspect each female on horseback. The doctor must ascertain whether or not the woman is, in fact, complying with this law!

 

In Hartsville, Illinois, you can be arrested for riding an ugly horse.

 

In Pattonsburg, Missouri, according to the Revised Ordinances, 1884: "No person shall hallo, shout, bawl, scream, use profane language, dance, sing, whoop, quarrel, or make any unusual noise or sound in such manner as to disturb a horse."

 

A Wyoming community passed this one: "No female shall ride a horse while attired in a bathing suit within the boundaries of Riverton, unless she be escorted by at least two officers of the law or unless she be armed with a club." And continues with this amendment to the original: "The provisions of this statue shall not apply to females weighing less than ninety pounds nor exceeding two hundred pounds."

 

A misworded ordinance in Wolf Point, Montana: "No horse shall be allowed in public without its owner wearing a halter." 

 

A Fort Collins, Colorado Municipal Code: "It is unlawful for any male rider, within the limits of this community, to wink at any female rider with whom he is acquainted."

 

West Union, Ohio: "No male person shall make remarks to or concerning, or cough, or whistle at, or do any other act to attract the attention of any woman riding a horse." 

 

Abilene, Kansas, City Ordinance 349 declares: "Any person who shall in the city of Abilene shoot at a horse with any concealed or unconcealed bean snapper or like article, shall upon conviction, be fined."

 

1899 vintage law from Waverly, Kentucky: "Any person who shall ride a horse in a public place while wearing any device or thing attached to the head, hair, headgear or hat, which device or thing is capable of lacerating the flesh of any other person with whom it may come in contact and which is not sufficiently guarded against the possibility of so doing, shall be adjudged a disorderly person."

 

A 1907 Cumberland County, Tennessee statute reads: "Speed while on horseback upon county roads will be limited to three miles an hour unless the rider sees a bailiff who does not appear to have had a drink in thirty days, then the horseman will be permitted to make what he can." 

 

Figure out this 1913 Massachusetts law: "Whosoever rides a horse on any public way-laid out under authority or law recklessly or while under the influence of liquor shall be punished; thereby imposing upon the horseman the duty of finding out at his peril whether certain roads had been laid out recklessly or while under the influence of liquor before riding over them." 

 

Male horse buffs in Basalt, Nevada, are prohibited from eating onions between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. while out riding.

 

Law specifies only men! Ice cream lovers beware in Cotton Valley, Louisiana. Citizens aren't allowed to eat an ice cream cone while on horseback in public places. 

 

An antiquated city ordinance in Quartzite, Arizona, prohibits anyone from playing cards with a pregnant woman, a child, or an Indian, "lest they acquire a taste for gambling!"

 

In McAlester, Oklahoma, it's taboo for a woman over 235 pounds and attired in shorts to be seen on a horse in any public place. 

 

It's illegal in Marion, South Carolina, to tickle a female under her chin with a feather duster to get her attention while she's riding a horse! 

 

It's a violation of the law for a married man to ride on Sunday in Wakefield, Rhode Island. Married women aren't mentioned, so it must be okay for them. 

 

A newly married man in Kearney, Nebraska, can't ride alone. The law states that he "can't ride without his spouse along at any time, unless he's been married for more than twelve months."

 

It is strictly against the law in Bicknell, Indiana, for a man to leave his new bride alone and go riding with his pals on his wedding day. The penalty is a week in jail. 

 

In Bismark, North Dakota, every home within the limits of Bismark must have a hitching post in the front yard. 

 

Budds Creek, Maryland, has an antique law which prohibits horses from sleeping in a bathtub, unless the rider is also sleeping with the horse. 

 

In Headland, Alabama: "Any man on horseback shall not tempt another man's wife. An unmarried horseman should not stop overnight when the woman is alone." 

 

Bluff, Utah's legislation regarding the Sabbath: Women who happen to be single, widowed or divorced are banned from riding to church on Sunday. Unattached females who take part in such outlandish activities can be arrested and put in jail. 

 

Citizens are prohibited from buying, selling or trading horses "after the sun goes down" in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, without first getting permission from the sheriff. 

 

In Schurz, Nevada, they have an old law which prohibits the trading of a horse after dark. 

 

In Pee Wee, West Virginia, people are prohibited from swapping horses in the town square at noon! 

 

A unique law in Pine Ridge, South Dakota where horses are banned from neighing between midnight and 6 a.m. near a "residence inhabited by human beings." 

 

And in Pocataligo, Georgia, horses aren't allowed to be heard neighing after 10 p.m.

 

Paradise, California, retains a most unusual law that says it is illegal to let a horse sleep in a bakery within the limits of the community. What about goats, cows, etc.?? Only horses are mentioned.

 

In Sutherland, Iowa, a law governs how horses may be seen when on the streets during evening hours. The animal must always have a light attached to its tail and a horn of some sort on its head.

 

No rodeos in this town! No man is allowed to ride his horse "in a violent manner" if he happens to be in Boone, North Carolina.

 

Female riders in Clearbrook, Minnesota, be aware of this one governing the heel length of a horsewoman's shoes. Any such woman can wear heels measuring no more than 1-1/2 inches in length. 

 

A loony clothing ordinance in Upperville, Virginia, bans a married woman from riding a horse down a street while wearing "body hugging clothing." A $2 fine can be imposed on any female rider who wears "clothing that clings to her body."

 

An attorney can be barred from practicing law in Corvallis, Oregon, should he refuse to accept a horse in lieu of his legal fees. 

 

Trying to find a wife? Watch out in Tranquility, New Jersey that you don't violate this law. The law states that a person can't distribute handbills while on horseback as a means of advertising for a wife.

 

It is against the law in California for horses to mate in public within five hundred yards of any church, school or tavern! The penalty can be a $500 fine and six months in jail. This law isn't clear as to whether the horse or the owner is fined and jailed. 

 

McAllen, Texas, has outlawed citizens from taking pictures of horses on the Sabbath. Any person who "disturbs" or "otherwise antagonizes a horse" in this manner will be subject to a fine of at least $1.50 and can be jailed for as much as "three full days and nights."

 

In Burdoville, Vermont, it states that "no horses are allowed to roam loose between March 1 and October 20! 

 

In case you have an accident in Hortonville, New York, here's their antique law: "The rider of any horse involved in an accident resulting in death shall immediately dismount and give his name and address to the person killed. 

 

Watch out in Rhinelander, Wisconsin if you are riding a horse while intoxicated! An old ordinance takes care of the problem. Such a horseman, per the law, must be given a "large dose of castor oil." Who doles out the penalty? The horseman's wife! Refusal to take the castor oil results in a fine!

 

In comparison to the above, I'd say our current laws regarding when/where/how/by whom motor vehicles can be operated on public roadways are pretty ligical and unobtrusive (not to mention, pretty necessary for the good of society at large)...maybe I'm wrong but I also doubt that our ancestors who lived when horses were the primary means of transportation and who had to live under some of these laws ever argued that these laws were an unconstitutional infringement on their right to travel.

 

And if you are referring to DUI checkpoints, no one is being stopped illegally.  The supreme court has said, and I agree, that they are constitutional if done under the guidelines they set forth. In any case, I would suggest that for anyone who is upset that we have DUI checkpoints; their anger and frustration should be directed, not at the checkpoints, but rather, at their friends, family, acquaintances who chose to drive under the infulance. We have DUI checkpoints for one simple reason; the irresponsibility of those who chose to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while drunk. DUI checkpoints are a respons to that irresponsibility.
 

Edited September 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

...However, the state regulates how you do so in a car on their highways....

 

The highways do not belong to the State, they are Public Thoroughfares and belong to every citizen. 

[sigmtnman]

Sir, you can go about your business all you want. However, the state regulates how you do so in a car on their highways.

Has nothing to with Adams and Franklin and the constitution. They had no cars then...

Clarksville still has laws on the books since before the Civil War that say you must dismount your horse at the edge of the city and walk your horse to your destination. That law still stands. Where does it violate my constitutional rights if I ride my horse to town? Same with driving a car...

 

DaveS

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are not frivolous laws enacted by government officials that fly in the face of our rights.  But to a further point, where does the law say they must register the horse and have a permit to operate the horse as a means of movement?

[sigmtnman]

You've already made that argument. I understand your position; I don't agree and repeating it isn't going to change my mind.

 

Driving a motor veicle on public roadways is not a "right" (nor is any other particular form/method/mechanism of transport for that matter). As such, attempting to compare a method of transportation with the right to keep and bare arms is an apples and oranges comparison.

 

As far s your use of horses as comparrison goes, as DaveS already pointed out, laws regarding how/when/where/by whom people could travel by horseback/horse-drawn wagond, etc. have existed even long before the motor vehicle was invented; some examples are...

<WOT removed>

 

In comparison to the above, I'd say our current laws regarding when/where/how/by whom motor vehicles can be operated on public roadways are pretty ligical and unobtrusive (not to mention, pretty necessary for the good of society at large)...maybe I'm wrong but I also doubt that our ancestors who lived when horses were the primary means of transportation and who had to live under some of these laws ever argued that these laws were an unconstitutional infringement on their right to travel.

 

And if you are referring to DUI checkpoints, no one is being stopped illegally.  The supreme court has said, and I agree, that they are constitutional if done under the guidelines they set forth. In any case, I would suggest that for anyone who is upset that we have DUI checkpoints; their anger and frustration should be directed, not at the checkpoints, but rather, at their friends, family, acquaintances who chose to drive under the infulance. We have DUI checkpoints for one simple reason; the irresponsibility of those who chose to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while drunk. DUI checkpoints are a respons to that irresponsibility.
 

 

If you understood, then you would not continue to post unrelated information.

I'm not saying driving a vehicle on a public road is a right.  I'm saying that the freedom of movement is a right and that the mechanism of movement is neither here nor there for private transportation purposes.  Futhermore, the licensing and permitting of mechanisms of movement is a means of restricting and controlling the freedom of movement.  

Looking through the wall of irrelevent words you posted, there is nothing about permitting or licensing of the mechanism of movement (horse and/or wagon).

It appeared that the argument was that the state has the right to make people get licenses.  The license comes attached with a requirement to allow testing.  The people therefore must submit to testing to get a license to operate a mechanism of travel for private purposes.

As far as your final argument, let's try something.

 

In any case, I would suggest that for anyone who is upset that we have DUI checkpoints gun legislation; their anger and frustration should be directed, not at the checkpoints gun legislation, but rather, at their friends, family, acquaintances who chose to  drive under the infulance mishandle/misuse guns. We have DUI checkpoints gun legislation for one simple reason; the irresponsibility of those who chose to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while drunk mishandle/misuse guns. DUI checkpoints legislative gun acts are a respons to that irresponsibility.

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

I too anxiously await the answer to see which logical fallacy will be used next while declaring that is is totally different than the exact same argument the Brady Bunch use in their efforts. At this point it is just plain funny.

 

It is difficult to question the validity or imagine the lack of long standing paradigms.  When you are accustomed to those paradigms it requires a change in frame of reference to see the them for what they are.

[RobertNashville]

If you understood, then you would not continue to post unrelated information.

I'm not saying driving a vehicle on a public road is a right.  I'm saying that the freedom of movement is a right and that the mechanism of movement is neither here nor there for private transportation purposes.  Futhermore, the licensing and permitting of mechanisms of movement is a means of restricting and controlling the freedom of movement.  

Looking through the wall of irrelevent words you posted, there is nothing about permitting or licensing of the mechanism of movement (horse and/or wagon).

It appeared that the argument was that the state has the right to make people get licenses.  The license comes attached with a requirement to allow testing.  The people therefore must submit to testing to get a license to operate a mechanism of travel for private purposes.

As far as your final argument, let's try something.

 

If citizens have a right to travel/movement but not a right to any specific mechanism of movement, then it follows that government, for the good of and safety of the public it exists to protect, as stated by our own Tennessee constitution, has a both the right and the duty to regulate specific modes of transport when a mode (i.e. driving a motor vehicle on public roadways) can present a significant danger to others when not done properly (such as driving without full faculties, without following the rules of the road, etc.).

 

Licenses the require a demonstrated minimal level of competence and an understanding of traffic laws, and regulations against drunk driving, or excessive speed are not restrictions on the "right to freedom of movement" any more than a city requiring a permit to use a city park, or march down a city street or prohibitions against inciting rioting are restrictions on freedom of speech.

 

 

As to your "lets try something"...it's still an apples/oranges (and therefor incorrect) comparison no matter how many times you try to compare the two issues.

[sigmtnman]

If citizens have a right to travel/movement but not a right to any specific mechanism of movement, then it follows that government, for the good of and safety of the public it exists to protect, as stated by our own Tennessee constitution, has a both the right and the duty to regulate specific modes of transport when a mode (i.e. driving a motor vehicle on public roadways) can present a significant danger to others when not done properly (such as driving without full faculties, without following the rules of the road, etc.).

 

Licenses the require a demonstrated minimal level of competence and an understanding of traffic laws, and regulations against drunk driving, or excessive speed are not restrictions on the "right to freedom of movement" any more than a city requiring a permit to use a city park, or march down a city street or prohibitions against inciting rioting are restrictions on freedom of speech.

 

 

As to your "lets try something"...it's still an apples/oranges (and therefor incorrect) comparison no matter how many times you try to compare the two issues.

 

 

No, it's a valid comparison.  Both are with regards to rights granted to us by our Creator, codified by the Constitution and under attack by the government and the citizens who support the attack.

 

The only difference is that you are in support of restricting one right and not the other.  I can only imagine you justify it to yourself by insisting that them apples are really apples and oranges.

[TMF]

 

 

As to your "lets try something"...it's still an apples/oranges (and therefor incorrect) comparison no matter how many times you try to compare the two issues.

 

How is that apples and oranges?  If you're saying that it's apples and oranges because they are both fruits, sold similarly yet representing different sources of nutrition I guess I could see that.  You're saying that small slights against the Constitution are "okay" because of the irresponsible actions of the few.  Why would that only apply to the 4th Amendment and not the 2nd Amendment?

 

I'll argue that both Amendments have been attacked for that very purpose, yet you support one and not the other.... because one strikes more emotion with you than the other?  I dunno, could you explain that better?  I don't think there is a single person reading through your logic who agrees with you.

Edited September 4, 2013 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

No, it's a valid comparison.  Both are with regards to rights granted to us by our Creator, codified by the Constitution and under attack by the government and the citizens who support the attack.

 

The only difference is that you are in support of restricting one right and not the other.  I can only imagine you justify it to yourself by insisting that them apples are really apples and oranges.

No, the difference is that they are different...i.e. not the same.

Edited September 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

No, the difference is that they are different...i.e. not the same.

 

So nya :rofl:

[Chucktshoes]

No, the difference is that they are different...i.e. not the same.

[tnguy]

If you are referring to DUI checkpoints (which has not even been the point of the discussion for at least the past two pages of this thread) then frankly, I don't care if people object or not.

 

We have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, its' because people refuse to be responsible and do the right thing and not drive if they've been drinking.

 

Everyone who has ever driven under the influence is part of the problem as is anyone who has ever let a friend do the same...those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve none and will receive no sympathy from me. As I said much earlier in this thread, those who do so are just as much a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

 

We are talking about the stopping of innocent people. If your method picks out only drunk drivers or gives you at least a reasonably suspicion that they may be drunk, have at it.

Edited September 4, 2013 by tnguy

[TMF]

No, the difference is that they are different...i.e. not the same.

Haha, this is exactly what came to mind!