Quantcast

Reasonable Compromise Poll

Discussion in 'Legal' started by JCF, Mar 29, 2007.

?

Please Read First Post Before Voting!

  1. D/L is a “reasonable compromise” to the 2A. Abandon it. There will be no impact to safety.

    4 vote(s)
    6.1%
  2. D/L is a “reasonable compromise” to the 2A, Keep it. It benefits safety.

    7 vote(s)
    10.6%
  3. D/L is NOT a “reasonable compromise” to the 2A. Abandon it. There may be an impact to safety.

    8 vote(s)
    12.1%
  4. D/L is NOT a “reasonable compromise” to the 2A. Abandon it. It serves no benefit to safety.

    28 vote(s)
    42.4%
  5. D/L is NOT a “reasonable compromise” to the 2A. Keep it. It benefits safety.

    5 vote(s)
    7.6%
  6. Other. Please Explain.

    14 vote(s)
    21.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Real Wyatt

    The Real Wyatt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    South Central KY
    I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of Driver Licensing somehow compromising the 2nd Amendment.

    The collection of data generated by driver licensing somehow compromises it??
    I just can't get there ... just too dense, I guess.
     
  2. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    *sigh*

    Yeah... this one is listing pretty badly.

    Scuttle at will mods.
     
  3. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    I had to vote "Other" if I was going to vote at all. I chose "Other" because drivers licenses are totally unrelated to the 2nd Amendment, and any poll suggesting that "submission" to driver's licensing in any way compromises the 2A is ridiculous.

    The 2A is a Constitutional affirmation of a pre-existing, (some would say) God-given right. There is no Constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle, and I doubt that the deity of your choice much cares if you walk, drive, take the bus or call a taxi. Therefore, your poll attempting to draw a correlation where no correlation exists or can exist is a waste of time and effort at best, and confusing and divisive at worst.
     
  4. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    I was slightly confused but I believe I understand it. However I do not believe that DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE was owning a horse a PRIVELEDGE when the constitution was written? I dont think so it was a necessity and a right. There are however many people who cannot drive well or should not be driving at all. I am torn on the DL issue, on the one hand I know its a good idea on the other the system is so lax about giving them its absolutely frustrating and makes me wonder if its even worth the tax money we spend on it.
     
  5. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    I wonder if my deity of choice cares whether or not Mexicans have permits to work in this country, or if local patrol units are equipped with an automated method of scanning license plates???

    So very many questions... if only I were to receive a sign.
     
  6. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,753
    Location:
    TN
    I don't understand the poll? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the privilege of driving a car or motor vehicle. If you are really talking about driver's licenses, they date back to the early 1900's when cars began appearing. It was intended as a certificate demonstrating minimum competence which of course relates to safety. So, what does this have to do with guns?
     
  7. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    Forget the poll. The poll was ill-conceived. It is incomprehensible unless you have a thorough grasp of the issue being discussed.

    Correct. The 2A, in its literal presentation, also has nothing to do with illegal immigration, law enforcement technology, etc.

    Yet, it is argued repeatedly that these issues, among others, are tangibly associable as potential infringements (or vehicles of infringement) of the 2A.

    I don’t personally agree. I don’t personally have a problem with driver licensing and testing. In fact I think it should be a more rigorous process than it is. But then I also don’t espouse the militant “no compromise” position taken by many 2A supporters.

    By the same token however, I consider myself to be relatively open minded, and I do spend time questioning and reassessing the basis of what I believe. So I am not prepared to completely discount the claims of the “no compromise” crowd. There may in fact be validity to their position.

    My question however is this:

    If we are to adopt a position against anything that potentially infringes the 2A, a “no compromise” position; if we are to extend this to include issues as protracted as illegal immigration (on the basis that it will change the social landscape of the nation to the extent that negative legislative change may occur) and law enforcement technology (on the basis that it will make it easier for the police to apprehend us once we are deemed felons), does it not stand to reason that we would take a position (and a vigorous one at that) against driver licensing – our governments’ primary databases of personal information – well before concerning ourselves with so many other of these issues?

    Yes. You are correct. And once again, this evokes a question in that many/most of us prefer to argue that certificates demonstrating minimum competence are of minimal value in actually realizing their intended purpose.

    It may also be argued that dispensation with such requirements for driver licensing might represent a very important philosophical precedent insofar as 2A rights are concerned.


    About as much as any other hotly debated collateral issue on this forum it seems.

    I’m beginning to think nothing at all.
     
  8. Beatnik

    Beatnik Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Well, I think I pointed out to CFriesen that I'm tracking here, at least.

    There are those of us - "strictly no compromise" types, I guess - who believe that the government has absolutely no business attempting to control our lives.

    How does driver licensing have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment? I'd actually throw seat belts, airbags, salad bar sneeze guards, low flow toilets, fireworks, unprotected sex, alternative medicine, and natural birth in the same category.

    All of these things are controlled by a government somewhere in the US. And us "no compromise" types (the ones not getting gassed) chafe at this every single time we poop. We don't accept the idea that we can't legally rid our homes of human waste as a fact of life, particularly not when the government had no explicit power to pass that law, and the only effect it has is to reduce my individuality - to rob me of an individual freedom.

    The 2A falls right in line with that viewpoint. Whether you're rabidly anti-government or not, the bottom line is that the 2A is the ultimate expression of individuality. One can not find a more pertinent example of controlling one's own destiny than dealing death upon those who would do us harm.

    The concept here is a bit higher than simply what is written in law. On the surface DL's have nothing to do with the 2A, but the underlying principles are intertwined: the 2A guarantees me some control over my own destiny, while DL's take some of that control away. (And about 3-4 hours of my life every couple years, but that's a separate gripe.)

    Likewise, DL's are granted and taken away in the name of one concept only: public safety. Why are there so many attacks on the 2A?
     
  9. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    You know what…. I have to admit Beatnik that for all the lurid spectacle that encompasses the tinfoil-hatted militance seen about these parts, I have to assign credit where credit is due.

    One (hypothetically speaking anyway) has to admire the purity of determination, if nothing else, of those who would actually dig a hole in the woods and spend thirty years living in it in order to ensure the preservation of their God-given right to own an undocumented SBR.

    On the other hand, one must truly question the depth of consideration exercised by those staunch proponents of freedom who juxtapose exhortations of war and self-proclamations of anarchism with vigorous concerns for whether or not Mexican truckers are properly insured and urine tested.

    Go figure.
     
  10. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    You know, Beatnik, you are correct..

    If I want to snot on the Garbonzo Beans, it is my business, not those Soup Nazis at Ruby Tuesday's.

    And that name "Ruby".... Red.... I knew it COMMIES!!!

    Last ducat they squeeze out of the Mongo....

    ;)
     
  11. rmurfster

    rmurfster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Location:
    Ohio
    Mongo,

    I know you were jesting, but really, another law or regulation isn't needed to keep you from hawkin' a loogie on the Garbanzo beans :eek:

    All that is needed is a couple of us to see you and take you out back for a little "etiquette" lesson :neener:
     
  12. Rumble

    Rumble Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Indiana, PA
    I vote "other." Driver's licensing is orthogonal to the Second Amendment. I don't think the 2A has a lot to say about governmental tracking or monitoring, either--we have an inalienable right to bear arms; but so long as arms are not impacted, it is silent on whether we have an inalienable right not to be watched. I think the 4th Amendment, if any, is more relevant here.
     
  13. Dmack_901

    Dmack_901 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    FL
    Drivers licences are issued because drivers drive in and on public property. There , the driver's ability to safely use the vehicle is a concern to the public(aka gov.).

    Therefor it would only be a reasonable comparison to require competency tests for the carry of arms in public.
     
  14. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    rmurfster -- so you are a Garbanzo lover eh???

    Gonzo for Garbanzo ...

    No, my Momma taught me manners. Emily Post's Etiquette book from the time I was four. Served me well, except I get lost with all the forks and spoons sometimes....

    Sometimes you have to play the spoons, or if they get in the way, hang them from your nose, yknow?
     
  15. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    I do have a thorough grasp of the issue being discussed. What I do not have is any grasp at all regarding why you think there is any correlation between a non-constitutional privilege and a Constitutionally-protected right.

    I do agree, however, that the poll is incomprehensible.

    Where is this argued "repeatedly"? You are the first and oly person I have encountered who has advanced this argument.
     
  16. up_onus

    up_onus Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    316
    Location:
    Reno
    I am not sure if im on the right track here....

    but
    I believe driving is a "privilege", and therefor if you want to drive, you have to have an "identification". This is purely a CHOICE on your part. If you choose not drive then no DL is needed!

    To own a gun, you must have some type of federal identification...
    THAT is a different story.
     
  17. obxned

    obxned Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,490
    Location:
    OBX, NC
    Driving is a priveledge, the 2nd Amendment reaffirms our rights.
     
  18. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    I've at no time intimated any correlation whatsoever between the two. I am not drawing a comparison, I am suggesting an examination of the implications of one upon the other. With all respect, your statement suggests you do not in fact grasp the issue.


    You could start here if you'd like.

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=259750

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=246110
     
  19. pacodelahoya

    pacodelahoya Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    911
    Location:
    SW PA
    cfriesen

    Your whole poll is invalid because you do not know how to spell they.( or maybe it was a simple typographical error and I don't have anything of substance to say):p
     
  20. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    I wasn't trying to spell "they" paco. I was, in the spirit of the late Col. Cooper, following your lead and using a manufactured word which refers to the "extremists" of thr (or "the" as it were). :D

    You are right... the poll is sh**
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice