RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death...

RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 3:53:25 PM)
Yes I am, one of the funniest motherfuckers you are likely to meet, but there are unintended consequences all around us from people not reading to the end of the treatise before they start slobbering stupid shit as factual, pertinent, or germaine.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 4:41:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant No...I'm comparing the actions of a 17 yr old with absolutely no right to own or drive a car to the actions of people who had rights and disregarded them. The result is the same...pointless deaths, no matter the weapon used. Actually, in some states, it is completely legal for a 16 year old to own a drive a car and quite a few states allow younger (I know one state has a 14 year limit) people to have special "agricultural licenses" to help out on the family farm. I only point this out because it might have been completely legal (and therefore a right) for a 17 year old to own and drive the vehicle. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? But not to drink and drive. Absolutely agreed but Creative's quote seemed to say that 17 year olds are automatically precluded from owning or driving a car. In the commonwealth in which I currently reside, the age is 16 for driving (I'm not sure about ownership but, since they can register the car in their name, that suggests "ownership", as well). Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? I dont remember reading about cars in the constitution... Can you tell me where that is in that lovely little document? Driving is not now nor will it ever be a "right" its a privlege that can be easily revoked. Owning a gun is a right, its specifically mentioned in that lovely little document, because even back then they knew that giving the power to a government wasnt wise.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 4:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yes I am, one of the funniest motherfuckers you are likely to meet, but there are unintended consequences all around us from people not reading to the end of the treatise before they start slobbering stupid shit as factual, pertinent, or germaine. Or your a deranged individual that has to post his blither about because of his sad and pathetic life.... I have not now nor have I ever found you find. In fact I find your use of derogatory terms in almost every single post against something you might not like pathetic, not funny. Now if you could present a valid point with out calling people nutsackers because they dont agree with you, some of your humor might shine through... but alas you cant seem to do that... But keep on keepin on....

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 4:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Not to get too far off topic in my own thread but the rights we have in this country are granted to us by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you look closely stceither one, there is no such right as a "right to drive". It is a privilege granted by the state you live in. Governed by laws and regulations but NOT an "inalienable" right, as declared by the Declaration, nor found anywhere within the Bill of Rights. Googling it brings up a bunch of papers but the major argument against it is similar to mine. I haven't googled any court cases over the argument but I will this afternoon. quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I dont remember reading about cars in the constitution... Can you tell me where that is in that lovely little document? Driving is not now nor will it ever be a "right" its a privlege that can be easily revoked. Owning a gun is a right, its specifically mentioned in that lovely little document, because even back then they knew that giving the power to a government wasnt wise. I've already explained this once but, let me try again: quote: ORIGINAL HERE Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] So, as I said, before: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Actually, it may well be within his rights to own an automobile. However, a driver's license is a privilege...not a right. That would depend upon how one interprets the right of free travel, which is a right. If we can say that muskets were the "assault weapons of their day", can't we also say that driving is just another mode of travel? I happen to think driving is a right, not a privilege. quizzical, I don't remember semi-automatic weapons being in the Constitution, either but there ya have it. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Not to get too far off topic in my own thread but the rights we have in this country are granted to us by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you look closely stceither one, there is no such right as a "right to drive". It is a privilege granted by the state you live in. Governed by laws and regulations but NOT an "inalienable" right, as declared by the Declaration, nor found anywhere within the Bill of Rights. Googling it brings up a bunch of papers but the major argument against it is similar to mine. I haven't googled any court cases over the argument but I will this afternoon. quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I dont remember reading about cars in the constitution... Can you tell me where that is in that lovely little document? Driving is not now nor will it ever be a "right" its a privlege that can be easily revoked. Owning a gun is a right, its specifically mentioned in that lovely little document, because even back then they knew that giving the power to a government wasnt wise. I've already explained this once but, let me try again: quote: ORIGINAL HERE Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] So, as I said, before: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Actually, it may well be within his rights to own an automobile. However, a driver's license is a privilege...not a right. That would depend upon how one interprets the right of free travel, which is a right. If we can say that muskets were the "assault weapons of their day", can't we also say that driving is just another mode of travel? I happen to think driving is a right, not a privilege. quizzical, I don't remember semi-automatic weapons being in the Constitution, either but there ya have it. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Its under the right to bear arms, as a gun regardless of its automatic nature is considered an "arm" its included. While your link could include driving a car, its not required to be able to move from one state to another which is what your clause is talking about.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Its under the right to bear arms, as a gun regardless of its automatic nature is considered an "arm" its included. While your link could include driving a car, its not required to be able to move from one state to another which is what your clause is talking about. As a semi-auto is not a requirement to take a life. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:24:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I dont remember reading about cars in the constitution... Can you tell me where that is in that lovely little document? It is right next to the part where it is a right to walk where you choose which is right next to where it is a right to ride a horse where you choose which is right next to where you can ride in a carriage where you choose. Do you really think that because the automobile is not specifically mentioned it is not covered? Driving is not now nor will it ever be a "right" its a privlege that can be easily revoked. Owning a gun is a right, Which like the right to drive can be revoked either temporarily or permanantly. its specifically mentioned in that lovely little document, because even back then they knew that giving the power to a government wasnt wise. If you had ever read an american history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would not put in print such assanine asswipe. The founders were quite specific as to the reasons for the white men,not in the army, were to be armed. You might want to try reading the anti federalist papers (those were the guys who demanded a bill of rights be attached to the constitution before they would agree to support it) specifically those by patric henry and george mason.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:26:36 PM)
Um... It was actually a semantics issue... [img]http://almostdorothy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bear-arms.jpg[/img] Jus sayin

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I dont remember reading about cars in the constitution... Can you tell me where that is in that lovely little document? It is right next to the part where it is a right to walk where you choose which is right next to where it is a right to ride a horse where you choose which is right next to where you can ride in a carriage where you choose. Do you really think that because the automobile is not specifically mentioned it is not covered? Driving is not now nor will it ever be a "right" its a privlege that can be easily revoked. Owning a gun is a right, Which like the right to drive can be revoked either temporarily or permanantly. its specifically mentioned in that lovely little document, because even back then they knew that giving the power to a government wasnt wise. If you had ever read an american history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would not put in print such assanine asswipe. The founders were quite specific as to the reasons for the white men,not in the army, were to be armed. You might want to try reading the anti federalist papers (those were the guys who demanded a bill of rights be attached to the constitution before they would agree to support it) specifically those by patric henry and george mason. Ill have you know my History book was written with 6-8th graders in mind and conforms to the common core standards that have been pushed out by the government.... [8\|] As I read the clause you and DSatyr have mentioned, I see it as the right to move freely from one state to another or one city to another, not necessarily the mode of travel but the ability to travel. And revoking gun ownership is unconstitutional, Its something many organizations have been trying to fight for years.. its just not been successful because so many people scream that with out gun control, thousands of people will be killed...

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:32:50 PM)
There are none so blind as those that stomp their feet and refuse to see. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr There are none so blind as those that stomp their feet and refuse to see. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Yes, Im stomping my feet because I read and interpret something different then you, Ive explained how I see it, if you have a problem with it that super. It doesnt really matter to me as my state says different then your state and thats okay. Your state says a lot different then my state on guns.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:40:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Ill have you know my History book was written with 6-8th graders in mind and conforms to the common core standards that have been pushed out by the government.... [8\|] It is pretty obvious that you do not feel the laws of my country apply to you so why the fuck do you live here and breath up my air? As I read the clause you and DSatyr have mentioned, I see it as the right to move freely from one state to another or one city to another, not necessarily the mode of travel but the ability to travel. They got big signs on the freeway that say no pedestrians. And revoking gun ownership is unconstitutional, Stick up a liquor store with a gun and see if the government does not legally revoke your right to own or posses a gun.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:42:30 PM)
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Yes, Im stomping my feet because I read and interpret something different then you, Ive explained how I see it, if you have a problem with it that super. It doesnt really matter to me as my state says different then your state and thats okay. Your state says a lot different then my state on guns. You are stomping your feet because you are a little child. You have no clue what the constitution says but feel competant to comment on it. We have simply pointed out your ignorance since you have failed to notice it yourself.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:43:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Ill have you know my History book was written with 6-8th graders in mind and conforms to the common core standards that have been pushed out by the government.... [8\|] It is pretty obvious that you do not feel the laws of my country apply to you so why the fuck do you live here and breath up my air? As I read the clause you and DSatyr have mentioned, I see it as the right to move freely from one state to another or one city to another, not necessarily the mode of travel but the ability to travel. They got big signs on the freeway that say no pedestrians. And revoking gun ownership is unconstitutional, Stick up a liquor store with a gun and see if the government does not legally revoke your right to own or posses a gun. I OWN a gun, I Follow the laws of my state even If I dont agree with them, I follow the laws of other states, even if I dont agree with them. Disagreeing with a law doesnt imply that I dont follow them. Not all roads have no pedestrians signs, not all highways do either. Which means pedestrians are allow to walk as a mode of travel. Disagreeing with you doesnt make me stupid, It makes my opinion different then yours, which is fine with me but apparently a huge issue for you. You have to ask yourself then why does someone on the internet affect me so much I feel the need to throw insults at them. I get it, your main point is to insult people who dont agree with you, your a lot like ron in that respect, but frankly it just makes you look more foolish.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 5:59:49 PM)
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I OWN a gun, Why? I Follow the laws of my state even If I dont agree with them, I follow the laws of other states, even if I dont agree with them. Disagreeing with a law doesnt imply that I dont follow them. I notice you left out federal law. Why? Not all roads have no pedestrians signs, not all highways do either. You really are an illiterate phoquing moron. I said freeway. What part of freeway do you not understand? Which means pedestrians are allow to walk as a mode of travel. The constitution does not say that now does it? Or were you in the shithouse smokin fags the day that was being discussed in your common core classes? Disagreeing with you doesnt make me stupid, Yes it does! Since I am right and you are wrong yes it does make you ignorant...stupid is still not off the table. It makes my opinion different then yours, Your opinion is ignorant and unsubstantiated thus it is an opinion not a fact. Mine is not an opinion it is verifiable fact. All you need do is read the motherphoquing constitution. which is fine with me but apparently a huge issue for you. The idiotic opinions of children posting on an adult forum is a tiny issue for me. I just point out your ignorance and hope you follow my advice and educate yourself before opening your mouth and inserting both feet. You have to ask yourself then why does someone on the internet affect me so much I feel the need to throw insults at them. Your mother may be polite in the face of your abject ignorance...but then that is her job it ain't mine. So when you say ignorant puerile assanine things I simply point out that they are ignorant puerile and assanine. When you persist in your sustained ignorance my patience is shortened. Now if it bothers your tender sensibilities to be told how phoquing ignorant you are then perhaps you might make use of the hide button or educate yourself and stop posting gibberish. I get it, your main point is to insult people who dont agree with you, your a lot like ron in that respect Not true. Ron is a gentleman and would never stoop to the sorts of accurate discriptions of fools like you that I fill my posts with. Plus he gets more blow jobs than I do ( I suspect it is because he has more hair than I do.) , but frankly it just makes you look more foolish. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated childish opinion based in the fantasy that is your life.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 6:14:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I OWN a gun, Why? I Follow the laws of my state even If I dont agree with them, I follow the laws of other states, even if I dont agree with them. Disagreeing with a law doesnt imply that I dont follow them. I notice you left out federal law. Why? Not all roads have no pedestrians signs, not all highways do either. You really are an illiterate phoquing moron. I said freeway. What part of freeway do you not understand? Which means pedestrians are allow to walk as a mode of travel. The constitution does not say that now does it? Or were you in the shithouse smokin fags the day that was being discussed in your common core classes? Disagreeing with you doesnt make me stupid, Yes it does! Since I am right and you are wrong yes it does make you ignorant...stupid is still not off the table. It makes my opinion different then yours, Your opinion is ignorant and unsubstantiated thus it is an opinion not a fact. Mine is not an opinion it is verifiable fact. All you need do is read the motherphoquing constitution. which is fine with me but apparently a huge issue for you. The idiotic opinions of children posting on an adult forum is a tiny issue for me. I just point out your ignorance and hope you follow my advice and educate yourself before opening your mouth and inserting both feet. You have to ask yourself then why does someone on the internet affect me so much I feel the need to throw insults at them. Your mother may be polite in the face of your abject ignorance...but then that is her job it ain't mine. So when you say ignorant puerile assanine things I simply point out that they are ignorant puerile and assanine. When you persist in your sustained ignorance my patience is shortened. Now if it bothers your tender sensibilities to be told how phoquing ignorant you are then perhaps you might make use of the hide button or educate yourself and stop posting gibberish. I get it, your main point is to insult people who dont agree with you, your a lot like ron in that respect Not true. Ron is a gentleman and would never stoop to the sorts of accurate discriptions of fools like you that I fill my posts with. Plus he gets more blow jobs than I do ( I suspect it is because he has more hair than I do.) , but frankly it just makes you look more foolish. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated childish opinion based in the fantasy that is your life. I own a gun because a man tried to rape me and while I was able to fend him off It was a difficult challenge. As for the rest of your blather, keep on keeping on sweetheart. Your insults I believe I will make into a drinking game since you like to make the same one over and over and over. However your lack of blow jobs Im going to guess isnt because your lack of hair but because of your rather disagreeable and rude nature,

FelineRanger -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 6:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You really are an illiterate phoquing moron. This comes from the person who can't even type the word FUCKING on a website that routinely discusses all manner of sexual acts openly. Or did quizzicalkitten suddenly become the owner of this place? [image]local://upfiles/1490522/D32E3CE5A6504A3BA0AB2AE7BA772682.jpg[/image]

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 6:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FelineRanger quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You really are an illiterate phoquing moron. This comes from the person who can't even type the word FUCKING on a website that routinely discusses all manner of sexual acts openly. Or did quizzicalkitten suddenly become the owner of this place? [image]local://upfiles/1490522/D32E3CE5A6504A3BA0AB2AE7BA772682.jpg[/image] Bill, Yes I am the owner of that restaurant, I think I will propose a fucking munch at the pho king restaurant.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 6:23:51 PM)
ORIGINAL: FelineRanger [image]local://upfiles/1490522/D32E3CE5A6504A3BA0AB2AE7BA772682.jpg[/image] That is my phoquing car in front of her phoquing pho king chow house. Where did you get that phoquing pic. Too kewel

thompsonx -> RE: Another Pointless Automobile Death... (9/11/2014 6:28:49 PM)
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten I own a gun because a man tried to rape me and while I was able to fend him off It was a difficult challenge. Lets hope that next time you might as dolly parton once said "I gotta pistol in my purse that will turn any rooster into a hen." As for the rest of your blather, keep on keeping on sweetheart. Your insults I believe I will make into a drinking game since you like to make the same one over and over and over. Stop posting ignorant gibberish and I will stop pointing it out for you. However your lack of blow jobs Im going to guess isnt because your lack of hair but because of your rather disagreeable and rude nature, Acutually I am old and ugly so it is so much simpler to rent. Nevada has 34 icensed butt huts and they know me by my first name in 32 of them. Everyone knows mr. cheap.[:(]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875