Obama's Feckless Leadership

[Xavier_Onassis]

Shooting guns is not a right, either.

[Plane]

Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?

Isn't that just another statist intrusion?

No, since driving's not a right.  Next

What?

Why isn't driving a right?

Is traveling or migrating not a right?

Where driving is the only way to get around , a restriction of drivers rights is practicly a  restriction on making a living.

[sirs]

Shooting guns is not a right, either.

No one claimed it was.  Merely a right to keep and bear guns.  The shooting is merely an act

[sirs]

Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?

Isn't that just another statist intrusion?

No, since driving's not a right.  Next

What?

Why isn't driving a right?

Is traveling or migrating not a right?

Sure...just not by car, or train, or boat, or jetski, or tricyle.  The car just makes things easier.  There was no right to a horse, back in the Founders days.  Nor a wagon.  Just made traveling easier

Where driving is the only way to get around , a restriction of drivers rights is practicly a  restriction on making a living.

Definately would make things harder.  But its still not a right, and as such can be regulated up the wazoo

[Xavier_Onassis]

Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not necessary. Of course, in 1780, there was very little if any regulation of carriages, horses, mules and wagons.

In 1780, guns were a necessity and horses were a given and it was never thought that any government would regulate them, since in England there were gun regulations but no horse regulations.

I think you were obliged to remove or pay to remove your dead horse from the street, but that was about it. They did not give tickets for double parking your mule. At most, someone would simply move it out of the way.

[sirs]

Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not necessary.

The Constitution says otherwise.  As Steven Wright accurately referenced, every place is walking distance,........ if you have the time   

Of course, in 1780, there was very little if any regulation of carriages, horses, mules and wagons.

Nor was there a right to keep & bear any

[sirs]

....and before Xo even tries to go with the deflection tangent, no, sirs is not advocating we can do away with cars, merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.

============================================
That is a bloody lie.

There is no constitutional ban on automobiles. No state bans automobiles. Since no one bans cars, horses, surreys, mules or buckboards, there is every right to own and operate them.

The Constitution says only what cannot be made illegal at most. Things that can be made illegal are not by definition illegal.

The Constitution does not ban nudity, and it does not ban clothing, either. It leaves this up to the states and localities, but I hardly think that any state could get away with banning clothing or nudity or automobiles or carriages.

If what you claim were true (which is is NOT), then each state could legally ban pants, or ban not wearing pants.

[sirs]

merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.

============================================
That is a bloody lie.

Then by all means, show me where in the Consitution we have a right to ... any mode of transportation.  Here's a hint, lack of a ban doesn't equate to a right.  There's no ban on owning a home, but that's not a right that you have one.  There's no ban on tacos, but that's not a right to a taco. 

So, which amendment does the right to *insert mode of transportation here* exist?

Try extricating yourself out of that hole now

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have no right to pants.

[sirs]

You're right, I don't.  Now, where in the constitution is there a right to a car, or horse, or wagon, or unicycle, or highspeed train?

The hole is getting deeper

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have no right to pants, and you also have no right to jabber on and on about holes, either.

[sirs]

So, no where in the Constitution, as in no right to a car, or any other mode of transportation.  Glad we got that cleared up.  And actually I do have a right to jabber on and on about holes.  That'd be outlined in the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

[Xavier_Onassis]

But you look silly jabbering on and on with no pants.

[sirs]

Not that it matters in the least, as it relates to debating what the Constitution says and doesn't say, but now besides the obsession you have about strutting, now you have one about my pants?.....or supposed lack there of?        Seriously scary