Do we actually have to have a driver license and a registered vehicle?

[freedomforall]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

[cyclOps]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

[freedomforall]

Cop says we cannot ride our bikes/bmx, I lay down the law and tell him to beat it. And he does

[freedomforall]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha. They do, but not with a badge indicating that they get paid to be a jerk and someone to fear or avoid under duress or caused to be under duress by them because of their cockiness or lousy PR.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

Driving safely is a responsibility. Having a driver license is a way for cops to extort money, not for making anyone drive any more safely than they already do. Being ticketed for speeding can be done with or without a necessary driver license. Believe me, a lot of drivers are scary to be around. A license in no way makes them any safer or worse. It's human nature and a rebellious attitude that make so many drivers dangerous. You have seen repeat offenders before. Did them having a required license make any difference? Neither will a suspended license. Just the opposite can happen, where a person is ticked off due to his own fault for getting busted and so they speed even more or whatever the case may be.

Here is an example of cops taking away a person's Constitutional privileges.

Also check from the 5:52 mark.

This is how Nazi Germany seemed to be our model...show your papers, tell where you're going and what you have in the car. Otherwise, dogs will be sicked on you and given commands to accuse you of something so they can search your car. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. Unless you are a cop in plain clothes and only have to flash a badge and get waved through, correct? And it wouldn't matter how many beers the cop had at the bar with all his buddies.

[nvr]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

Is running a lawnmower over gravel next to sunbathers legal? There's no law for it - it is simply common sense not to do that. Same might apply for road signs. In an ideal free society, when people didn't follow signs and caused accidents, they would become liable for lawsuits and also face higher insurance premiums. That said, with freedom comes the additional responsibility not to create mayhem. As it is, I think we have the police state that we have because we accept the idea that we're not responsible enough to abide by common sense guidelines and cannot take care of ourselves. If we got rid of police pulling people over for not stopping a full second at a sign, I don't think we'd lose out on any benefits other than maybe some revenue for the city.

[cyclOps]

Guys, FFA and NVR, you didn't answer my question. I'm not talking about right or wrong or responsibility or common sense. I'm talking about Constitutionality. After all, that is the issue you guys see with driver license laws.

Is requiring someone by law to stop at stop signs and stop lights unconstitutional because it restricts their right to travel?

[freedomforall]

Guys, FFA and NVR, you didn't answer my question. I'm not talking about right or wrong or responsibility or common sense. I'm talking about Constitutionality. After all, that is the issue you guys see with driver license laws.

Is requiring someone by law to stop at stop signs and stop lights unconstitutional because it restricts their right to travel?

No, because they are free to proceed when it is safe to do so, rather than being detained by police and questioned as if they are a common criminal. Plus, I doubt many of us attended a hair-splitting convention. The stopping at a stop sign is being conscientious and respectful of other drivers and of being safe in one's driving. Yet you failed to mention yellow blinking lights. Even then precaution is a correct action.
There is a difference between being stalled for reasons of safety and being stopped by the police and receiving a ticket for S120.00, or sent to jail for driving 110 mph on a freeway.

Okay, your turn. Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong. Why is the Constitution of no value within the first 100 miles from any coast within the US?

[cyclOps]

You've really got to stop contradicting your own reasoning FFA.

I assume when you say

Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong.

that you are talking about checkpoints, correct? We don't run checkpoints where I work, so I'm not completely familiar with them. From what I understand though, checkpoints have to be approved by a judge and have to be advertised to allow drivers to take a different route if desired. It is not entrapment. It is essentially saying this road is closed but you are free to go through if you stop at the checkpoint first.

See Stacy Oliver's post on why that is not entrapment. Entrapment doesn't mean you are trapped because you have to stop.

[freedomforall]

You've really got to stop contradicting your own reasoning FFA.

I assume when you say

Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong.

that you are talking about checkpoints, correct? We don't run checkpoints where I work, so I'm not completely familiar with them. From what I understand though, checkpoints have to be approved by a judge and have to be advertised to allow drivers to take a different route if desired. It is not entrapment. It is essentially saying this road is closed but you are free to go through if you stop at the checkpoint first.

See Stacy Oliver's post on why that is not entrapment. Entrapment doesn't mean you are trapped because you have to stop.

Okay, so I used an incorrect word. My bad.
Now, let's look at it this way. A man driving along the highway intoxicated comes to a DUI barricade set up by the police. There is no way around it, so the driver proceeds to enter the barricade. The driver is asked if he had anything to drink. This is a type of snare used to trap an intoxicated driver. So now the driver has two options, 1) either get busted for drinking, or 2) floor the gas peddle and try to evade charges. So the driver chooses the latter and then gets busted five miles down the road, having added charges brought against him for running.

Had the barricade not been there the driver would not have been put into a position of possibly furthering his guilt.

Now its DUI checkpoints, and immigration checkpoints. What's next, "have you picked your nose recently?"

Just because a Fed court says these checkpoints are okay, they are still against the Constitution, period. Even the courts are under obligation to uphold the Constitution, it being the Supreme law of the land.

For those who like to quote what courts have to say about anything, I urge you to read this:

The Gospel Key To Our True Constitution
Formerly
The United States Has Two Constitutions
How to identify and promote the true Constitution

Ask this man what he thinks of the Court System: Ernie Wayne Tertelgte. He is talking about the driving without a license.

[freedomforall]

I apologize for any confusion, contradictions, misunderstandings or articulation errors. This is a cross I have to bear. So please bear with me and know I do my very best. I'm not an authoritarian, just a guy who loves the Constitution and trying to abide by its precepts...knowing it came from God. Man's views of it that are unconstitutional in thought and application is that which they must bear. With what limited understanding capabilities I may have, I think I am doing more than a lot of really, profoundly sharp individuals that are ignorant of the law and especially the Supreme law of the land..and will defend unconstitutional laws resulting in stripping away more of our rights and privileges of WE THE PEOPLE.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:6
6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

So doing something is better than being apathetic or complacent.

Have priesthood bearers become neutralized in their duty to uphold the Constitution?

From (April 1965, General Conference) we read:
The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever….
[Says the devil]: “Don’t do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution.” This brings us right back to the scripture…to those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are “compelled in all things” [D&C 58:26]. Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe….
[H]ave we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guidelines? Yes indeed, we have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program [to save the Constitution], who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be “commanded in all things,” used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle “in a good cause” and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom’s cause….
Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and worldwide mission. The war in heaven is raging on the earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle?

I do my best with what I got because I, for one, am not neutralized.

[cyclOps]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

[Ezra]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

That's why we were told by our prophets to read the federalist papers and study the scriptures along side the constitution to understand it.

The principles of the constitution are gospel principles. Moral principles.

In order for us to be free we have to allow others to be free. Not dictating what they do with their time and money. How they choose to live there life's or educate themselves or how they choose to make a living.

A big part of that is judge not least ye be judged. If we judge our neighbors to be ignorant and think we should force education on him for his own good. Use our vote to make sure he is not ignorant through government mandates. We have put him ourselfs and our fellow men into bondage to pay for it.

You will find that almost all of the infringements of our freedoms have come from the heart strings being pulled. Or from judgement of others.


We are supposed to have a government of the people for the people.

We have a responsibility of the actions of the government. We will be judged by what we allow our government to do. D&c 121 33-43 points that out as well. Most are not chosen because of unrighteousness dominion. Which is inherent in almost all men that as soon as they get some authority (vote) they practice it.

And that is how almost all are not chosen due to our support of unrighteousness dominion through our government of their fellow men.

The burden and bondage of taxation and of unconstitutional laws.

We have to remember that if it is not ok for me to do it as an individual then it's not ok for me to use the government to do it.

Like.

It's not ok for me to go to my neighbors and demand and force they pay for my food. Or my schooling. And so on and so on.

[freedomforall]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

That's why we were told by our prophets to read the federalist papers and study the scriptures along side the constitution to understand it.

The principles of the constitution are gospel principles. Moral principles.

In order for us to be free we have to allow others to be free. Not dictating what they do with their time and money. How they choose to live there life's or educate themselves or how they choose to make a living.

A big part of that is judge not least ye be judged. If we judge our neighbors to be ignorant and think we should force education on him for his own good. Use our vote to make sure he is not ignorant through government mandates. We have put him ourselfs and our fellow men into bondage to pay for it.

You will find that almost all of the infringements of our freedoms have come from the heart strings being pulled. Or from judgement of others.


We are supposed to have a government of the people for the people.

We have a responsibility of the actions of the government. We will be judged by what we allow our government to do. D&c 121 33-43 points that out as well. Most are not chosen because of unrighteousness dominion. Which is inherent in almost all men that as soon as they get some authority (vote) they practice it.

And that is how almost all are not chosen due to our support of unrighteousness dominion through our government of their fellow men.

The burden and bondage of taxation and of unconstitutional laws.

We have to remember that if it is not ok for me to do it as an individual then it's not ok for me to use the government to do it.

Like.

It's not ok for me to go to my neighbors and demand and force they pay for my food. Or my schooling. And so on and so on.

I have these books but doubt I'll ever get through them. Each book is quite thick. I bought them individually, some used, not trusting that what a seller may call a five set...not containing all five books, because the added, combined price of each book I think exceeds the listed price for the five set. Nevertheless, it is a buyer's choice.

vol 1 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... n%2C+Vol.2
vol 2 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... n%2C+Vol.2
vol 3 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... CQ4V6EKDA5
vol 4 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... T6GCX1847K
vol 5 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... PV1E2JH5G2

[freedomforall]

Also check this out:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

Want to try out some quizzes?
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-co ... tory-quiz/
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/usconsti ... izzes.html
http://www.funtrivia.com/quizzes/world/ ... e_usa.html
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-kids/

[freedomforall]

A Woman Who Drives Without A License - And Tells How

[Elizabeth]

Do not attempt this in Australia. LOL =)). Unless you are looking for huge fines and gaol time.

Also bikes and pedestrians:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... 08735c9bb0

"Since March 2016, NSW police has been targeting bike riders and pedestrians in a series of operations to enforce the increased penalties for cyclists introduced by the state government.
The laws, which are among the strictest and most expensive in the world, resulted in cyclists copping more than $2.2 million in fines across the top-five offences in the 12 months following the introduction of the fines.
Figures from Revenue NSW revealed the crackdown saw a 38 per cent increase in fines from the year prior, with a total of 9760 infringements handed out to cyclists, reports Fairfax Media.
Of the total infringements, a whopping 6162 fines were given to cyclists not wearing a helmet.
And despite this only being 1377 more fines than the same period from the previous year, the newly quadrupled $319 fines increased revenue from $337,000 to $1.99 million for the same offence.
Riding a bicycle on a footpath was the second biggest offence, collecting $127,730 from 1205 fines — 518 more than year earlier.

Even with the fine for running a red light or stop sign jumping from $71 to $425, police nabbed 849 cyclists to earn $360,825 in revenue.
Offences relating to riding without a bell increased from 166 to 463 to collect $49,770, while riding in the dark without a front or real light earned $81,148 from 756 offences.

While cyclists were heavily targeted with these infringements, only 17 fines were handed out to motorists failing to pass riders at a safe distance, earning just $5610.
When examining the breakdown, Bicycle NSW said it was disappointing to see a large focus on cyclists and not on drivers failing to give the minimum passing distance when overtaking a bicycle.
“To have only 17 drivers caught infringing the minimum passing distance road rule in the last year demonstrates that better support to enforce this rule needs to be delivered,” Bicycle NSW wrote in a blog.
“We have more than 100 records of vehicles in the last three months that have not given bike riders a safe space when overtaking on our roads.”

The organisation said it had seen a high failure rate for participants who try to accurately estimate the minimum passing distance they need to give bike riders in campaign funded by a Community Road Safety grant.
“An alarming 80 per cent did not know they can legally cross double lines, when safe to do so, in order to give cyclists enough room when overtaking,” the organisation wrote.
“Bicycle NSW wants to see a significant increase in public education on how to share our roads so that bike riders, pedestrians and drivers all know their responsibilities when travelling in whatever transport mode they choose.”
Bicycle NSW said the 6.5 per cent decrease in injuries and cyclist deaths since the crackdown was a welcomed statistic, but argued it might not be all as it seems.
“In 2015, 16.7 per cent of people in NSW rode bikes regularly, that has now dropped to only 12.5 per cent in 2017 — the lowest in the country according to the Australian Bicycle Council’s National Cycling Participation Survey,” the organisation wrote.
“It’s certainly difficult to declare that the increased penalties have reduced the incidents when the overall number of people choosing to ride a bike have declined so dramatically.”

[Elizabeth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y

Driving in Florida US without a license. Non payment of parking fines LOL