Black Smoke Matters


Notice that in 393.55 it clearly states “shall be equipped”.

Nowhere does it state I’m required to “use” ABS going down the road, it only states that the ABS must be “equipped”.

Besides, nobody ever looks at that stuff on a roadside
 
Either your trying to twist what was sad or you didn't comprehend it.
You have the right to travel all you want but driving is a privilege.

And before you ask it. Here's one of many :
Miller v Reed 1999 , 9th Circuit .
176 F..3d 1202.
Heck there's cases going all the way back to 1914.
Not technically- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't have any caveats- the courts are known for being wrong on many assumptions- they are, after all, lawyers, who pay others to teach them to lie, albeit legally- they rely heavily on interpretation which can't exist without definition which is usually ignored- ala Bill Clinton expressing it depends on what is means- if indeed our rights are guaranteed to be protected by the constitution, please explain the HSA- the NDAA extensions, etc.

We have the right to pursue- liberty- in today's world that means automobiles/trucks/planes etc. Laws are designed to punish the many for the actions of the few- if one causes a wreck that causes harm to person or property will a license change the accountability? Answer: No. will adhering to rules meant to control change the accountability? Answer: No. Why? because laws are meant for punishment AFTER an event. Laws against prevent 0- but they do line the coffers of law writers and give LEO's opportunity to act a fool.
 
Some of us have a reputation of the obscure and just knowing information.

 
Not technically- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't have any caveats- the courts are known for being wrong on many assumptions- they are, after all, lawyers, who pay others to teach them to lie, albeit legally- they rely heavily on interpretation which can't exist without definition which is usually ignored- ala Bill Clinton expressing it depends on what is means- if indeed our rights are guaranteed to be protected by the constitution, please explain the HSA- the NDAA extensions, etc.

We have the right to pursue- liberty- in today's world that means automobiles/trucks/planes etc. Laws are designed to punish the many for the actions of the few- if one causes a wreck that causes harm to person or property will a license change the accountability? Answer: No. will adhering to rules meant to control change the accountability? Answer: No. Why? because laws are meant for punishment AFTER an event. Laws against prevent 0- but they do line the coffers of law writers and give LEO's opportunity to act a fool.

I'm going to go with the driving is a privilege and has been upheld by the courts since at least 1914.
 
Some of us have a reputation of the obscure and just knowing information.

I wouldn't consider required safety features and the penalties for disabling them obscure.
 
I'm going to go with the driving is a privilege and has been upheld by the courts since at least 1914.
Courts are designed to garner revenue and mete out punishment on the many for the actions of the few- their interpretation is heavily skewed-and could actually care less about your Rights than my cat.
 
Those are good looking kitty’s. I’m a dog man myself, but kitty’s are growing on me. They can have pretty funny personalities
I like dogs too, a lot, but cats are easier to take care of- my oldest son had a Pit Bull that I declared to be my first grandson- he got cancer at age 11 and they had to put him down for his own good- one of the hardest days I've ever had.
 
I like dogs too, a lot, but cats are easier to take care of- my oldest son had a Pit Bull that I declared to be my first grandson- he got cancer at age 11 and they had to put him down for his own good- one of the hardest days I've ever had.
Never a good day, losing a loved one
 
The question is do you know.

Dumbass



Underneath the judge's gavel...

:biglaugh:

No , actually the question wasn't whether I knew or not. Had it been I would of replied like the adult that I am and said " no I don't know"
instead of replying in such an immature manner. It's not surprising that 'you did'
You see it's just not difficult for me to say " I don't know"
It's also not difficult for me to apologize to people when I'm out a line.
It's also not difficult for me to admit when I'm wrong. All of which are for the same reason.
 
Courts are designed to garner revenue and mete out punishment on the many for the actions of the few- their interpretation is heavily skewed-and could actually care less about your Rights than my cat.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. Even being as cynical as I am as well as being a nonconformist.
 
No , actually the question wasn't whether I knew or not. Had it been I would of replied like the adult that I am and said " no I don't know"
instead of replying in such an immature manner. It's not surprising that 'you did'
You see it's just not difficult for me to say " I don't know"
It's also not difficult for me to apologize to people when I'm out a line.
It's also not difficult for me to admit when I'm wrong. All of which are for the same reason.
I have no idea whether I can admit when I'm wrong or not. It hasn't happened yet.
 

Back
Top