Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Brent P on 14 Mar 2007 01:06 In article <1173847938.449928.66950(a)y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > On Mar 13, 12:00 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: >> Most people understand that license suggest privilege just as they >> understand that a right needs no license. > I doubt most people believe this misinterpretation. A privilege is a > special grant bestowed by an authority there is an element of whim at > play in it. A license, as I said, is an earned benefit. The applicant > gets it with or without the whim of the state if he or she qualifies > through the objective standards. There is a difference. What further makes Steve wrong is the existance of a firearms license such as that in IL. Now I think that IL's FOID cards are a constitutional violation, but that is beside the point here. For numerous reasons a person can be denied a FOID card, however to own a firearm legally one must have a FOID card. Afterall, that's why they busted into Tank Johnson's (Player for the chicago Bears) house. He had guns but no FOID. The right to own fire arms is spelled out in admendment two, not just retained by default. The message in the modern government is however clear, just because state government made licensing requirements doesn't reduce a what is considered a right to priviledge. It may have that effect, but it won't be spelled out that way in the law for fear of said law being struck down by the courts. So, the challenge remains, where is there a law that clearly states that driving is a priviledge?
From: BTR1701 on 14 Mar 2007 17:54 In article <pan.2007.03.02.02.17.59.672367(a)hotpop.com>, Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > driving is a privilege, not a right. Merely because the government unilaterally declared it to be so. And it's in the government's best interest to do just that because when they define something as a privilege, they can take it away without all that nasty fuss and justification. And if the "privilege" is something that has, for all intents and purposes, become essential to the daily lives of millions of citizens, it gives the government vast power and control over those citizens that it wouldn't otherwise have. Just because the Constitution doesn't expressly guarantee the right to drive doesn't mean it isn't or shouldn't be a right of the citizenry. The Constitution doesn't expressly guarantee your right to own a home, either, but I hardly think you or anyone else would be comfortable with calling your ability to do so a "privilege" that's revocable at the will of some bureaucrat.** **The disgusting decision in the New London case last year came pretty close to making property ownership just that-- a privilege. The Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, declared all citizens to be mere tenants whose occupation of their property is enjoyed at the pleasure of the government.
From: BTR1701 on 14 Mar 2007 18:06 In article <%FlFh.2836$QI4.1864(a)trnddc01>, "Bill Walker" <bill.walker2(a)verizon.net> wrote: > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:qaOdnWvj75uwFXjYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > In article <45e57dae.460747515(a)news-server.houston.rr.com>, Citizen Bob > > wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:57:08 -0500, Steve Furbish > >><sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > >> > >>>the best prosecutorial tact against nullification is > >>>a proper voir dire challenge before the trail starts. > >> > >> Why would the prosecution want to infringe on the jury's right to > >> judge the law? That's part of their responsibility under common law. > > > > Why does the government want to increase its power? > > > > Government has far more power when it can shape the thinking of juries > > into a narrow margin where they don't judge the law. This way government > > can > > make laws that almost every person disagrees with yet still get > > convictions for violating them. > > Imminent Domain comes to mind.. So does Eminent Domain.
From: Brent P on 15 Mar 2007 19:14 In article <CKWdnc-TC5JMTWTYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> The toilets are out in the open, the mail is read/searched. What would >> those be? > > You never were in the military, we're you? If toilets in the open bother > you then you oughta see how you have to shower sometimes. I replied to the other post thinking you had some reasonability left. I was in error. what I think of toilets in the open is irrelevant. <snip unread>
From: Ed Pirrero on 15 Mar 2007 20:48
On Mar 15, 4:28 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <pLadnXG3mO_l3WnYnZ2dnUVZ_uygn...(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > >>> The old... 'you shouldn't even talk about it on usenet' routine. Oh, > >>> trust me, I've brought this sort of thing up to local office holders, > >>> police departments, newspapers.... It's practically cut and paste from > >>> the usenet posts! > > >> I'm sure you have. > > > Yet you accuse me of 'doing nothing'. > > Oh I'm sure that you've complained. > > But in essence, yes. You've already admitted that you can't take the pay > cut required to do the public service which might give you a glimmer of > a chance to affect a change. Complaining (and often as not to the wrong > audience) is not doing something. Well, writing to representatives (state and national) is the common way folks make their opinions known to those who represent them, right? That, and monetarily supporting candidates that reflect their views. Going to town council meetings, school board meetings, etc, and speaking - is that "complaining" or "doing something"? Signing petitions, circulating petitions, writing letters to the editor of local rags stating a position - complaining, or doing something? Whining in usenet is one thing, IMO. I don't know of anyone who takes usenet too seriously as a forum for changing things. Even as an agent of information distribution, the signal:noise ratio is way too low. There's a line between discussing something that's topically important, and using that as a springboard to discuss larger issues not related to a particular newsgroup's subject. Like RLCs. For rec.autos.driving, RLC issues are topical. As a segue into government tyranny, not so much. But the situation as Brent describes, if taken at face value, appears to be one of those RLC situations in which the locale has decided to make this particular RLC a money-maker at the expense of safety. If the yellow interval is so short as to violate both the letter and intent of the law in Brent's state, then he has a point, and any discussion arising out of that in which drivers are supposed to "anticipate" the red signal when the signal is green, seems ridiculous on it's face. There's already a signal in use for that - it's called a "yellow light". Pulling "gotchas" on otherwise law-abiding citizens is wrong, Steve. Whether it's a 20mph reduction in the signed speed limit on a road for no other reason than to operate a speed trap (like in Rome, OH, or another example given in this thread using a traffic camera), or yellow timing set such that reasonable folks proceeding on a green light at the speed limit cannot stop in time to avoid getting an RLC citation, traffic "gotchas" in place of voted-upon taxation is contrary to good ethics and safety. And that's on-topic for r.a.d., at least. Other discussions regarding the unproven motivations of political figures probably isn't, but that's not really been discussed much in this thread. E.P. |