the RIGHT to travel

blazin256

Well-Known Member
yes traveling is a right and congress shall make no laws that hinder our rights and any law that does so is null and void.
as we all know, the cops rely on trickery, intimidation and ignorance of the people they stop to get money for the state. are you the "DRIVER" of this vehicle? 99% of the people will say yes. but courts have made the distinction between DRIVER, and TRAVELER. and guess what, traveling requires no license at all. it works the same way if congress announced you needed a license to have babies (although some probably should) this would immediately be thrown out because they cant make a law against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i suggest reading this for an eye opening view of what is really going on on the PUBLIC roads that we pay for. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
remember ANYTHING you say can and will be used against you. every little word.
 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
"traveling requires no license at all'


Obviously havnt travelled much ? Not legally anyway , ever heard of a passport or Visa ?
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
did you even read the article kid? not once did i even say anything about air travel. plus, you dont even need a passport to travel in the us by plane anyway. now please add something useful to the convo or not at all.
 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
I didnt mention air travel , i would expect travel by any method requires the same paperwork to cross any border.You said theres no such thing as a license to travel , i say there is.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
again i ask if you read the article....

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."​
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."​
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940


 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
I read what you wrote and pointed out a discrepency , there is in fact a license to travel.Had you said within the US we wouldnt be having this discussion would we ? Like you said..every little word can and will be used , works both ways.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
there is a license to DRIVE. you dont need a license to TRAVEL on a bike, on foot, on a horse, automobile. planes are privately owned not public property like roads, so you would be subjected to different laws not pertaining to my topic. and once you leave the u.s. our way doesnt really apply. im sorry if i thought the comprehension level of this place was slightly higher then pure stupid. i didnt know when someone starts talking about being pulled over, courts, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that you have to tell them your talking about WITHIN the u.s.
 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
there is a license to DRIVE. you dont need a license to TRAVEL on a bike, on foot, on a horse, automobile. planes are privately owned not public property like roads, so you would be subjected to different laws not pertaining to my topic. and once you leave the u.s. our way doesnt really apply. im sorry if i thought the comprehension level of this place was slightly higher then pure stupid. i didnt know when someone starts talking about being pulled over, courts, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, that you have to tell them your talking about WITHIN the u.s.
So rather than accept you typed it out poorly you'd much rather resort to a veiled personal attack , wont fly with me buddy.You are wrong , end of.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
if you read the article it wouldn't of happened. and yea i shouldn't of insinuated you were stupid but it happens, im sorry. but now that everything is cleared up, lets try to stick to the topic please.
 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
Yeah..im so stupid i sold my business and retired at 37.I live a life of ease in the US now..but ill concur , lets put it to one side , i wont insinuate you are anything , im not the type to slip veiled attacks into a post.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
well thanks for taking the high road, and i would greatly value any opinion at all, if any, to the article. heres another snippet from the beginning of it.

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.
 

fitch303

Well-Known Member
Damn guys, chill out lol
If it isn't in the constitution it isn't a right. I LOVE licenses, it lets me know the guy/gal next to me on the highway/road knows what the fuck they're doing. Driving a vehicle weighing several tons is no joke, you MUST have minimum understanding of the rules and display that you're competent controlling a 4000lb car in various circumstances and a license is evidence of that.
 

Fullmoon kid

Active Member
Yeah..im so stupid i sold my business and retired at 37.I live a life of ease in the US now..but ill concur , lets put it to one side , i wont insinuate you are anything , im not the type to slip veiled attacks into a post.
dude, let it go. i apologized, now you're egging it on.
Whatever , i had put it aside some number of posts ago , tis you trying to keep it going , nice try.Now ill say again , sure..lets put it aside.
 

irishwyrick

Active Member
your kinnda being a dick kid or at least it comes off that way. maybe its just lost in translation when written in text
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
Damn guys, chill out lol
If it isn't in the constitution it isn't a right. I LOVE licenses, it lets me know the guy/gal next to me on the highway/road knows what the fuck they're doing. Driving a vehicle weighing several tons is no joke, you MUST have minimum understanding of the rules and display that you're competent controlling a 4000lb car in various circumstances and a license is evidence of that.
having a license doesn't always prove competence. it doesn't prevent drunk drivers. it doesn't prevent accidents. its a nice concept but accidents will happen no matter what. i agree we must have knowledge on the rules of the road and safety, but hell we're made to go to school for at least 12-13 years. but the fact still remains (according to the article and my view) that me getting in my car and driving (or traveling i should say) is my right, our right, as american citizens, and to require a license to use roads that we pay for as they have made us do is wrong. its all a scam to get our money, that's why im against it. this is new to me so im still sort of researching it. i was always taught driving is a privilege (which is correct) but is only half the truth. another win for public education i guess?
 
Top