and how would they be prevented then? without testing or licensing?

thats like saying it's your right to drive, but only if you follow our laws... that negates the right, doesn't it?

there is no LAW

there is no LAW That gives a right to drive

though there are plenty of laws regarding who can operate a motor vehicle,,,

that's my point,,,lol

the cases provided in this thread refer to the 'right to travel'

not a 'right to drive'

no more than saying you have a right to 'free speech', but you can be sued for libel or slander


rights have responsibilities attached,,,

No, because that would impose on the rights of anothers safety

That is again a matter of opinion and simply PC, but if it causes harm to another or violates their rights you can be sued for libel if not true.

The only restriction on a "right" is to know where someone elses right begins

That would become pretty obvious by appearance (youth) or not being able to simply navigate a driveway.

And that is the duty of traffic enforcement, to enforce those laws of public safety.

No, there are laws regulating use of the highways and roads for public safety....speed, lights, right of ways, etc. Those are not rights you are born with because they are shared with others, and subject to regulation, but the freedom to travel by whatever means is, whether licensed or not.

Laws have NOTHING to do with Rights!
Rights are not given by Laws!
Rights are inherent in People!
Read your Bill Of Rights!

sorry, i don't see it that way... one of the regulations is to have a valid DL on public roads...
if it changed, then surprise, surprise, news to me, and the state of Texas owes me a lot of money for tickets i got while driving without a valid DL...

Knowing the law, or rather not knowing the law, is what revenue relies on.

Sue your lawyer or blame yourself, but the law is the law. Now whether the judge allows the law in his courtroom.....that can be a problem, but like the cases stated, "appeal" is a wonderful exercize in rights!

The laws haven't changed, you just don't know them well enough or had a bad attorney.

Common Law versus The Uniform Commercial Code. Pretty simple in theory really. Do no harm.

how can there be an 'inherent' right to drive when cars don't occur naturally?....

the creator didn't give us cars, so how could God have given us the 'right' to drive a car,,,

smh

now, 'traveling' is something people have done long before cars that can be said to be 'inherent' as a right

How unbelievable is that response?

Has nothing to do with cars or guns but our rights to the pursuit of happiness if it pleases us to own or operate them.

It's about rights, not the tools, whether past, present or future tools that make us happy have nothing to do with our right to own or use them.

You are not born with speech, you learn it, you are not born with the ability to procreate, it developes with maturity.

Get a clue!

so pursuit of happiness should be interpreted as 'whatever pleases us is our right?

so pursuit of happiness should be interpreted as 'whatever pleases us is our right?

so pursuit of happiness should be interpreted as 'whatever pleases us is our right?






speech develops NATURALLY, as a means of communication, although not everyone speaks the same language and language is learned, but SPEECH has existed since the first people NATURALLY

the ability to procreate, likewise, develops NATURALLY in human beings,, since the FIRST Human being

the first human beings could TRAVEL,, but they could not DRIVE A CAR,


speech, procreation, travel, assembling are all NATURAL parts of human coexistence

there is nothing 'NATURAL' about driving a car ,,

Being a liberal it is typical that you have no concept of rights vs law.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..... I would say yes! Pretty much anything that we enjoy in our pursuit of happiness that doesn't impose on the rights of others is pretty much a given according to the law of the land.....our Constitution.

It is your concept of law that appears to be flawed by the illusion of law as it is wrongfully and unlawfully enforced.

so,, if a forty year old wants to pursue a 13 year old, and it makes them both 'happy'

should government consider that an inherent right and stay out of it?

or,, if a brother and sister want to get it on and they are both 'happy' doing so,,, should we stay out of it as an inherent right

or,, if it makes my neighbor happy to stand on their lawn with the music blasting and shouting curse words,,,,should we not allow regulations regarding disruption of the peace?


if it makes them 'happy'


Id like to see how long or how far a 'civilized' society would go if we just assumed everyone had the 'right' to do what made them happy, regardless of the potential for harm or the impact upon the happiness of others,,

,

What right do you assume to get involved?

A child is a child until they are emancipated. No parent in their right mind would think such a thing acceptable, therefore the act would violate their right as parents.

A neighbor blaring music and cursing loudly violates your rights by infringing on your peace.

Neither are acceptable and both violate rights of another person or persons.

So again, your point is moot!

Your rights always end where anothers begin.