Motorcycle.com

ofreen · 06-21-2005, 10:19 PM

So you are saying an activity is a privilege if it isn't listed in the Constitution? Check out Article 9. That was stuck in there because they forsaw the "privilege vs. rights" BS.

ofreen · 06-21-2005, 11:28 PM

Should have said check out 9th amendment.

pdad13 · 06-22-2005, 01:03 AM

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I'm not sure how that supports your argument. In fact, it completely defeats your argument. It basically says that one's rights end where another's begin. That clash usually happens in public, where peoples' rights and actions tend to collide.

So you're saying that everyone has the right to drive or ride? Everyone? So anyone should be allowed to go out and just hop in a car and go? No standards, no laws, no requirements. Yeah, that's what the constitution says.

And yet we all ***** about how bad people drive.

Don't give me that BS stuff when some of of you are so transparent about what you really want but you dress it up as a consititutional issue. People with loud pipes generally like the way they sound. Period. But yet they take this pseudo-heroic stance about freedom and rider safety. Hmmm, why is it that they feel the need to rev them while idling at a stop light? Or how 'bout when sitting in a tunnel or underpass? What does that have to do with safety and freedom? Well, maybe it has something to do with the freedom to be an a-hole. Well, you can be an a-hole all you want as long as it dosen't infringe upon someone else's right to enjoy their private property.

Freedom does not entitle us to do anything we want at anytime. Sorry.

Give me a break. If you want anarchy, I feel sorry for you.

pdad13 · 06-22-2005, 01:13 AM

Seruzawa, I agree with you on many things, but this is not one.

We are not entitled to do anything we want at anytime. That is a perversion of the concept of "freedom," at least the freedom that the founding fathers invisioned. If that were true, in essence, none of us would have any rights because there would be no way to ensure them from being damaged by the actions of others.

And no, the Consititution does not mention drivers' licences. But it does make it fairly clear what our rights and responsibilities are.

ofreen · 06-22-2005, 03:05 AM

My point has nothing to do with anarchy, or not wanting to follow rules for the common good. My understanding of the ninth amendment was that Madison, I believe, wrote it to answer the concerns of the Federalists that if 'rights' were enumerated in the Constitution (they opposed the idea of a 'Bill of Rights'), then at some future point, the government would say that we have only those enumerated rights. I believe the Federalists had a good point, thus my comment about 'privileges vs. rights' in your post and the one from kp in the helmet thread. I believe the assumption implicit in your post that if a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist, and therefore must be a 'privilege' is incorrect and dangerous.

pdad13 · 06-22-2005, 06:56 AM

"I believe the assumption implicit in your post that if a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist, and therefore must be a 'privilege'..."

Well, that's not exactly what I meant. But yes, I can see how you would make that inference. However, we do have enumerated rights, despite opposition from the Federalists, along with the protection of the ninth amendment, which basically says that excercising an enumerated right should never restrict an unenumerated right.

So what is an unemumerated right? Probably millions of things, but if we look at the Consititution in its totality, I think it's pretty clear that the ability to operate a motorvehicle on public roads is not one of them. If you want to engage in relativism, well, then I would suggest that I probably have the right to stand in the road outside of your house and shout insults into your window late at night.

Operating a vehicle on public roads can potentially put others' lives, well-being and property in harm's way. It is not your right to do that. You have to prove a certain level of competence to be allowed to drive (even given the woeful state of training in the U.S., another topic altogether.) So to question whether it is a right or a privilege, in my eyes, is absurd. We don't hand out driver's licenses at birth--for good reason.

Hutchinator · 06-22-2005, 07:45 AM

Unfortunately, no. It would tend to track all the civilians that we're suppose to be protecting who are protesting our presence. Then the newies get involved, nations wag thier finger at use, public whines, leads to more protestors attracting more noise-seeking missles... it's just so messy a cycle.

BikelessinNJ · 07-24-2005, 10:02 AM

I don't know if you've seen the latest stats but motorcycle deaths have risen in the last 5 years and the number of REALLY loud bikes has grown. Maybe some motorists are more ticked off by the loud bikes. I haven't owned a bike for several years. I've been considering getting another one but after seeing (or should I say hearing) all the rude riders who pretend annoying people actually is their god given right, I'm not so sure. I was at a wedding on Saturday and just as the couple were exchanging their vows several bikes rode by the church and drowned them out. Anyone who knows how to ride knows this isn't necessary.

06-21-2005, 10:19 PM	#51
ofreen Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 329	Re: Motorcycles Only... So you are saying an activity is a privilege if it isn't listed in the Constitution? Check out Article 9. That was stuck in there because they forsaw the "privilege vs. rights" BS.

06-21-2005, 11:28 PM	#52
ofreen Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 329	Re: Motorcycles Only... Should have said check out 9th amendment.

06-22-2005, 01:03 AM	#53
pdad13 Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,733	Re: Motorcycles Only... "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I'm not sure how that supports your argument. In fact, it completely defeats your argument. It basically says that one's rights end where another's begin. That clash usually happens in public, where peoples' rights and actions tend to collide. So you're saying that everyone has the right to drive or ride? Everyone? So anyone should be allowed to go out and just hop in a car and go? No standards, no laws, no requirements. Yeah, that's what the constitution says. And yet we all ***** about how bad people drive. Don't give me that BS stuff when some of of you are so transparent about what you really want but you dress it up as a consititutional issue. People with loud pipes generally like the way they sound. Period. But yet they take this pseudo-heroic stance about freedom and rider safety. Hmmm, why is it that they feel the need to rev them while idling at a stop light? Or how 'bout when sitting in a tunnel or underpass? What does that have to do with safety and freedom? Well, maybe it has something to do with the freedom to be an a-hole. Well, you can be an a-hole all you want as long as it dosen't infringe upon someone else's right to enjoy their private property. Freedom does not entitle us to do anything we want at anytime. Sorry. Give me a break. If you want anarchy, I feel sorry for you.

06-22-2005, 01:13 AM	#54
pdad13 Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,733	Re: Motorcycles Only... Seruzawa, I agree with you on many things, but this is not one. We are not entitled to do anything we want at anytime. That is a perversion of the concept of "freedom," at least the freedom that the founding fathers invisioned. If that were true, in essence, none of us would have any rights because there would be no way to ensure them from being damaged by the actions of others. And no, the Consititution does not mention drivers' licences. But it does make it fairly clear what our rights and responsibilities are.

06-22-2005, 03:05 AM	#55
ofreen Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 329	Re: Motorcycles Only... My point has nothing to do with anarchy, or not wanting to follow rules for the common good. My understanding of the ninth amendment was that Madison, I believe, wrote it to answer the concerns of the Federalists that if 'rights' were enumerated in the Constitution (they opposed the idea of a 'Bill of Rights'), then at some future point, the government would say that we have only those enumerated rights. I believe the Federalists had a good point, thus my comment about 'privileges vs. rights' in your post and the one from kp in the helmet thread. I believe the assumption implicit in your post that if a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist, and therefore must be a 'privilege' is incorrect and dangerous.

Sponsored Links	Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum Advertisement

06-22-2005, 06:56 AM	#56
pdad13 Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,733	Re: Motorcycles Only... "I believe the assumption implicit in your post that if a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist, and therefore must be a 'privilege'..." Well, that's not exactly what I meant. But yes, I can see how you would make that inference. However, we do have enumerated rights, despite opposition from the Federalists, along with the protection of the ninth amendment, which basically says that excercising an enumerated right should never restrict an unenumerated right. So what is an unemumerated right? Probably millions of things, but if we look at the Consititution in its totality, I think it's pretty clear that the ability to operate a motorvehicle on public roads is not one of them. If you want to engage in relativism, well, then I would suggest that I probably have the right to stand in the road outside of your house and shout insults into your window late at night. Operating a vehicle on public roads can potentially put others' lives, well-being and property in harm's way. It is not your right to do that. You have to prove a certain level of competence to be allowed to drive (even given the woeful state of training in the U.S., another topic altogether.) So to question whether it is a right or a privilege, in my eyes, is absurd. We don't hand out driver's licenses at birth--for good reason.

06-22-2005, 07:45 AM	#57
Hutchinator Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 243	Re: West Hollywood Enforces Zero-tolerance Policy Unfortunately, no. It would tend to track all the civilians that we're suppose to be protecting who are protesting our presence. Then the newies get involved, nations wag thier finger at use, public whines, leads to more protestors attracting more noise-seeking missles... it's just so messy a cycle. __________________ \"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.\" George Orwell

07-24-2005, 10:02 AM	#58
BikelessinNJ Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1	Re: West Hollywood Enforces Zero-tolerance Policy I don't know if you've seen the latest stats but motorcycle deaths have risen in the last 5 years and the number of REALLY loud bikes has grown. Maybe some motorists are more ticked off by the loud bikes. I haven't owned a bike for several years. I've been considering getting another one but after seeing (or should I say hearing) all the rude riders who pretend annoying people actually is their god given right, I'm not so sure. I was at a wedding on Saturday and just as the couple were exchanging their vows several bikes rode by the church and drowned them out. Anyone who knows how to ride knows this isn't necessary.