You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 22, 11:54*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:12 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> > Pirrero, your position must be very weak ...
>
> LOL. *Irony always makes me chuckle.

Another sign of a weak position.

On Mar 25, 8:48*am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:54*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 4:12 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> > > Pirrero, your position must be very weak ...
>
> > LOL. *Irony always makes me chuckle.
>
> Another sign of a weak position.

Laughing at irony? Sure thing, anonymous e-tard...

E.P.

proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:30�am, Harry K > wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:12�am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> >
> > > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
> >
> > > Pirrero, your position must be very weak if you must spend all your
> > > time focusing on ONE link made more than a year ago to an inaccurate
> > > cite so that you can avoid the numerous links to accurate cites and
> > > numerous valid arguments I make.
> >
> > > > might shut his dumb ass up.
> >
> > > And, your having to resort to personal attacks also display a weakness
> > > on your part.
> >
> > > We have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our Public Highways for
> > > Personal Travel.
> >
> > Yep. �That was settled in court in Spokane last week. �The comment by
> > the judge was "he has the right to drive as long as he has a
> > license".
>
> Actually, we have the Right to Drive, …

…with a license and registration…

> and this Right is being
> circumvented by the application of unjustified police powers requiring
> a driver's license.

False. The right is enhanced by that. The people have the right to
public safety and general welfare.

> > So once again you have it right but you conveniently omit the ending
> > part.
>
> So once again you have it right but incorrectly insert the ending part.

No, he had it right. The ending part is essential. You cannot separate
them merely because you wish it to be so.

proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:54�am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:12 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> >
> > > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
> >
> > > Pirrero, your position must be very weak ...
> >
> > LOL. �Irony always makes me chuckle.
>
> Another sign of a weak position.

How so? By what logic do you reach *that* conclusion?�

Your position throughout has not only been exposed as weak, but as
fatally flawed.

On Mar 25, 11:30Â*am, " > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 11:54�am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > > On Mar 22, 4:12 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > > Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > > > I think a link to the post in which he gave the made-up cite,
>
> > > > Pirrero, your position must be very weak ...
>
> > > LOL. �Irony always makes me chuckle.
>
> > Another sign of a weak position.
>
> How so? By what logic do you reach *that* conclusion?�

By the same logic that allows him to find a right to drive in caselaw
that supports no such thing. Duh.



E.P.

On Mar 25, 1:08*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> a right to drive

Even without the court's agreement, we have the Right to Drive on our
Public Highways in the process of Personal Travel. Where any court
disagrees, they merely choose to violate our Right. Courts don't give
or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed by our Creation.
Courts only decide which of our Rights they will either recognize,
deny or violate.

Regardless though, the courts have recognized our Right to Drive as
being protected by the U.S. Constitution as a part of our Right of
Liberty. Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
Unjustified. Unjustified police powers are invalid.

http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

On Mar 27, 8:01 am, proffsl > wrote:
>
> Courts don't give
> or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed by our Creation.
> Courts only decide which of our Rights they will either recognize,
> deny or violate.

<Dood. Something is seriously wrong with your Shift or Caps Lock key,
maybe both.>

A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone", regardless
of any physical limitations.

According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys who
have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.

Why does "the right to drive" not extend to operating airplanes?
They're pretty much the "normal" and "ordinary" way we travel the sky,
no?

Why was your license to drive suspended or revoked?
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 27, 6:01*am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:08*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
> > a right to drive
>
> Even without the court's agreement, we have the Right to Drive on our
> Public Highways in the process of Personal Travel. Where any court
> disagrees, they merely choose to violate our Right.

Incorrect.

>*Courts don't give
> or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed by our Creation.
> Courts only decide which of our Rights they will either recognize,
> deny or violate.

Courts mediate conflicts among rights. We have a right to safety and
general welfare. Licensing and registration are fully adjudicated and
found to be well within constitutionality. You would like for dogs and
infants and amoebae to be able to drive until each individual one
causes an accident. Thta's not reasonable.

> Regardless though, the courts have recognized our Right to Drive as
> being protected by the U.S. Constitution as a part of our Right of
> Liberty.

Only with a license. You cannot leave this out.

> Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> Unjustified. *

Wrong. Citing the police power that we the people give to our
government to work for our common welfare and public safety cannot be
construed as "circumvention." It is integrally part of the system as
much as any other element.

>Unjustified police powers are invalid.

Licensing is fully justified through numerous litigations. It's
settled case law.

On Mar 27, 7:17*am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:01 am, proffsl > wrote:
> >
> > Courts don't give or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed
> > by our Creation. Courts only decide which of our Rights they will
> > either recognize, deny or violate.
>
> <Dood.

The name is proffsl, DOOD


>*Something is seriously wrong with your Shift or Caps Lock key,
> maybe both.

mY sHIFt aNd cAPs lOcK KEyS wORk QuITe WeLL


> A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> regardless of any physical limitations.

True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
"Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers the
Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe manner.

Do you presume that one is entitled to the Right of Speech, regardless
if they find it physically or mentally impossible to do without
Libeling othes?


> According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.

Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.


> Why does "the right to drive" not extend to operating airplanes?
> They're pretty much the "normal" and "ordinary" way we travel the
> sky, no?

Who said it didn't? We have the Right to use our Public Right of Ways
for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. Right of Ways also exist in
the air. The Ordinary Way of Personal Travel on those Right of Ways is
by Airplanes.


> Why was your license to drive suspended or revoked?

Apparently you DO presume that one is entitled to the Right of Speech,
regardless if they find it physically or mentally impossible to do
without Libeling othes?

Wish to put your money where your libelous mouth is?

On Mar 27, 5:01*am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:08*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
> > a right to drive
>
> Even without the court's agreement, we have the Right to Drive on our
> Public Highways in the process of Personal Travel. Where any court
> disagrees, they merely choose to violate our Right. *Courts don't give
> or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed by our Creation.
> Courts only decide which of our Rights they will either recognize,
> deny or violate.
>
> Regardless though, the courts have recognized our Right to Drive as
> being protected by the U.S. Constitution as a part of our Right of
> Liberty. Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> Unjustified. *Unjustified police powers are invalid.
>
> http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

Are you so stupid that you just have to include in your post the
refutation?

>Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> Unjustified.

One question. If it is so easy, why haven't you? You have been
making this stupid claim for a minimum of 10 years now.

I asked earlier, here it is again. Have you put your money where you
mouth is? Just turn in your license and refuse to get another. That
action coupled with the "easily proven" bit will have you on the fast
track to the supreme court in a flash.

Harry K