Subject:
|
Re: Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:31:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
snip
| |
Invoking a national I.D. argument is specious; a driver’s license is
completely voluntary.
Again, the amazing part to me is that this is even an issue of contention.
JOHN
|
Totally on the same page with John--driving’s a priviledge, not a right, and
getting a drivers license, as it stands today in many areas, is getting your
picture taken such that when and if you get pulled over, the officer compares
your ID to you, to make sure you are licenced to drive--if there’s a veil in the
picture, it could be *anyone* under the veil, either in the pic or behind the
wheel.
Religious freedom is a legitimate right in your church and on your property, but
religious freedom ends when other people’s safety gets involved--and veiled
licences is inherently unsafe.
Anyway, that’s just my first impression.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) Please cite in the Constitution this "right". (...) Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick. (...) How about theft? (...) Yet another conspiracy? (...) Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
