Warning: violators will be prosecuted.
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 12

Lucedale

#21 Nov 11, 2013
Scoop, if rights are unalienable they can't be taken away. Our founders studied a series of writings by Sir William Blackburn and other scholars of the similar time. The writings were called the Law of Nature and Of Natures God, and are referenced in the Declaration.

This case cites that the Federal government views driving, boating, and flying as rights.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83...

This case Shapiro v Thompson cites that travel from state to state is a right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Boat, car, or plane are the excepted common ways of travel and thus are protected rights by the 14th Amendment.

The point isn't the 14th though its the 4th. I have the right to in my person and my effects be free of unwarranted searches and seizures. I have the right to move freely without being harassed.

Being on government property doesn't suspend a right, rights can't be suspended! They are unalienable from Nature and Natures God! If you suspend them because I'm driving on Government roads well then that means the Government is not responsible to protect your rights!! That doesn't make any sense! If anything being on government property increases the responsibility of protection of those rights.

Read the Declaration, the Constitution, the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. You will see easily that the Government has overreached that they have too much power.

“No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the states’ interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the nation’s roads are legion.”

“Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale – the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints – is slight”

“In sum, the balance of the state’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment....”

Justice Rehnquists quotes tell you that the checkpoints are intrusive but because they are only a little intrusive the police do not need reasonable suspicion. Come now isn't the point of the 4th amendment that no matter how slight the intrusion an officer must have reasonable suspicion?

On another note Germany used roadblocks after the Reich-stag Fire Decree to imprison, those who did not hold to Nazi values. Spies were Catholics and those who disagreed, prisoners were those of an entire ethnicity. Nazi's used roadblocks to ethnically cleanse their country, surely you do not support this.
Minnow Bucket

Petal, MS

#22 Nov 11, 2013
Can you explain the following question that someone posted here on topix?

Can this man have the "RIGHT" to put 'COPSLIE' on his vanity plates?

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#23 Nov 11, 2013
Minnow Bucket wrote:
Can you explain the following question that someone posted here on topix?
Can this man have the "RIGHT" to put 'COPSLIE' on his vanity plates?
Simple. A guy wanted this as his vanity plate but the law objected to its use. Are vanity plates a right or privilege.

Since: Jun 12

Lucedale

#24 Nov 11, 2013
I wouldn't call it a right or a privilege, I'd call it a taxation atrocity. To think a man spends $20k on a car and still has to pay another $60.00 each year to put an ugly piece of metal with a bunch of letters on the back of it !AND! the poor fella CANT even CHOOSE what letters he wants. I'd call it a tragedy through taxation, extortion, quite possibly I'd call it communism.

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#25 Nov 13, 2013
Its one of the major ways that our highways are kept safe, although exorbitant in some cases. Well, they claim that although its true in some cases, its an unfair and general accusation against all who are trying to do an already difficult job. And could be considered more like propaganda as communists would do. Would MORAN3LIES be proper or hateful and false?

_N0_N33D_T0_T33L _

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26 Nov 13, 2013
johnomoran3 wrote:
I wouldn't call it a right or a privilege, I'd call it a taxation atrocity. To think a man spends $20k on a car and still has to pay another $60.00 each year to put an ugly piece of metal with a bunch of letters on the back of it !AND! the poor fella CANT even CHOOSE what letters he wants. I'd call it a tragedy through taxation, extortion, quite possibly I'd call it communism.
John i dont know you but you seem to be pretty smart i love reading your comments they are so true! same as we work hard and buy our land to live on but yet we dont own it dont pay tax we lose it just like the little sticker on the windsheild thats stupid also so is alot more things

_N0_N33D_T0_T33L _

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#27 Nov 13, 2013
Here is a few sites on facebook people are waking up and getting pissed check them out i get all the updates on my wall

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanWhiteHistory...

https://www.facebook.com/PrepareToTakeAmerica...

https://www.facebook.com/RealPissedOff

Check them out getting very pissed off

Since: Jun 12

Lucedale

#28 Nov 13, 2013
The_SCOOP wrote:
Its one of the major ways that our highways are kept safe, although exorbitant in some cases. Well, they claim that although its true in some cases, its an unfair and general accusation against all who are trying to do an already difficult job. And could be considered more like propaganda as communists would do. Would MORAN3LIES be proper or hateful and false?
"Its one of the major ways that our highways are kept safe, although exorbitant in some cases"

I cannot understand how a tag makes us safer. Is there some mystical property of a tag that I have missed? I know this sounds like a coy statement, in a way it is, however, honestly can you really believe that a 12x10 peice of metal is going to keep you safe? If in fact it is exorbitant in any case, the 8th Amendment should protect us from it.

"like propaganda communists would do"

Communists would not allow you to call a government official a liar...

"MORAN3LIES"

MORAN3LIES is not proper, it is likely disdainful, and I would say assuredly on most occasions it is monumentally false!

It not being proper though, is not a reason to restrict his right to free speech. If I told you that COWSLIE or POLITICIANSLIE (cant fit it on a tag) or anything else would it be in question?

No, we live in the real world and in the real world it is common knowledge that politicians lie, and nobody cares if you insult a cow. If you were to say John O Moran III you are a liar... would I be able to sue you?

No, all men are liars, so are all cops. However if someone were to make the statement John O Moran III embezzled $10k and sells drugs...well now you are liable.

Furthermore, even if that were the statement to place on a tag, our government should not restrict his freedom to do so. His liability for slandering my good name with criminal accusations could cause me to sue him, but that would be my choice.

We are liable for the rights we exercise and any damages caused by their exercise, but that does not mean we should restrict those rights. Rather a right should go unrestricted, citizens holding the burden of liability, and a government with great respect and fear of the individual.

I recommend a documentary that is a little off color, quite vulgar, and honestly should not be watched by small children, but nonetheless makes an argument about the first amendment quite well. "The Right to Be Left Alone"

Since: Jun 12

Lucedale

#29 Nov 13, 2013
_N0_N33D_T0_T33L_ wrote:
<quoted text> John i dont know you but you seem to be pretty smart i love reading your comments they are so true! same as we work hard and buy our land to live on but yet we dont own it dont pay tax we lose it just like the little sticker on the windsheild thats stupid also so is alot more things
I appreciate that! I volunteer and work with several groups across the state, who are working to get rid of Inspection stickers once and for all. I work very closely with MS for Liberty on promoting legislation.

http://www.msforliberty.com/blog_inspection_s...

Last year MS for Liberty was one of the main groups if not the main group that helped House Bill 2-Definition of Concealed carry get passed. I hope we can do the same with the Inspection Sticker legislation that got shutdown by Tater Tot (tate reeves) last year.

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#30 Nov 13, 2013
johnomoran3 wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate that! I volunteer and work with several groups across the state, who are working to get rid of Inspection stickers once and for all. I work very closely with MS for Liberty on promoting legislation.
http://www.msforliberty.com/blog_inspection_s...
Last year MS for Liberty was one of the main groups if not the main group that helped House Bill 2-Definition of Concealed carry get passed. I hope we can do the same with the Inspection Sticker legislation that got shutdown by Tater Tot (tate reeves) last year.
So you're willing to let dangerous vehicles on the road threatening the lives of people because of someones' opinion of what is inalienable or not.

_N0_N33D_T0_T33L _

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#31 Nov 13, 2013
The_SCOOP wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're willing to let dangerous vehicles on the road threatening the lives of people because of someones' opinion of what is inalienable or not.
scoop there already on the road with a sticker

Since: Jun 12

Lucedale

#32 Nov 13, 2013
The_SCOOP wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're willing to let dangerous vehicles on the road threatening the lives of people because of someones' opinion of what is inalienable or not.
How do vehicle inspection safety stickers make us safer? Is it because safety is in the name?

The majority of the inspection doesn't check for anything you aren't already required to have. It also has no accountability in between. It essentially is just an extra tax for owning a vehicle, another way for police to fine you if you don't keep up with it.

I personally do not need the government maintaining my car. Just like I don't need Obama-care to help maintain my body (and tax me), I don't need the government to hold my hand.

I don't need them telling me how to live, forcing me to buy insurance, taking my income, restricting my freedoms, or telling me that the words inalienable or infringe have multiple meanings.

It must be super dangerous to drive in the 33 other states that don't have inspection stickers. I imagine cars are just falling apart all over the highways.

Inspection stickers don't keep dangerous vehicles off the roads anymore than laws against drunk driving keep drunks off the road.
GUY

Hattiesburg, MS

#33 Nov 14, 2013
Seems like scoop wants the government in everything

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#34 Nov 14, 2013
GUY wrote:
Seems like scoop wants the government in everything
Being realistic is just common sense. There is very little you don't benefit from the government in one fashion or another.

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#35 Nov 14, 2013
The inspecters make sure they start off safe. aits up to the owner and law enforcement after that.

“John 3:16”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#36 Nov 14, 2013
You think that's something? Consider what these companies are proposing.

Insurance companies have proposed that the following restrictions should be imposed on new drivers:
a "curfew" imposed on young drivers to prevent them driving at night, an experienced supervisor to chaperone the less experienced driver, forbidding the carrying of passengers, zero alcohol tolerance, raising the standards required for driving instructors and improving the driving test, vehicle restrictions (e.g. restricting access to 'high-performance' vehicles), a sign placed on the back of the vehicle (an N- or P-Plate) to notify other drivers of a novice driver and encouraging good behaviour in the post-test period.

Some countries or states have already implemented some of these ideas. Pay-as-you-drive adjusts insurance costs according to when and where the person drives.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lucedale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sound Off (Jun '09) 15 hr Cheryl dickerson 14
job roofing Aug 20 sayles 1
Leonard and Tonya Dunnam Aug 13 a real Dunnam here 3
Leonard dunnam Aug 12 Molester Dunnam 1
looking for old friends Aug 4 Curtis Bennett 1
Mary Loper Case (May '12) Jul 29 Wondering 41
Arrons Jul '16 carmen 1

Lucedale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lucedale Mortgages