I too am "naturally peaceful" but that doesn't mean I'm gonna let someone come into my home and steal from me or do me or mine harm..

I grew up with guns and i just think its bs that people think they should be banned, they wont be wishing that when someone breaks in their house...oh wait they have brain power, brain power isnt going to do much when its splattered on the wall.....

Actually I tend to think driving is a right, as well. I know I will get flamed for this, but think of it like this. The roads are public property yes? They are there for all of us to travel on. Now, given that fact, why should we have to have any qualifications to use the land designated for us? By making us have a license in order to legally drive on this property, they are in effect controlling our use of it no?

Besides all that, with any licenses, drivers included can come abuse. That is to say, if they have the right to give the license our, they also have the right to take it away, for any reason, even unrelated to what the license may be for. It can and is at times quite subjective in that way, and that's part of the reason I oppose licenses as a whole, besides the obvious controlling factor.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Here's why driving is NOT a RIGHT ...

(1) A RIGHT exists SIMULTANEOUSLY among all who possess that right. This is NOT the case for your example, the driver's license.

(2) A RIGHT imposes NO OBLIGATION upon ANYONE ELSE. A driver's license imposes the OBLIGATION of dealing with a BUREAUCRACY imposed by the STATE on EVERYONE who wants a drivers license.

(3) A RIGHT is NOT REVOCABLE. A drivers license can be revoked when the PRIVILEGE granted by the STATE is misused.

PRIVILEGES, on the other hand, are GRANTED. They do NOT exist with SIMULTANEITY. They impose an OBLIGATION upon others, and a PRIVILEGE can be REVOKED by the GRANTOR of the privilege.

Myth: Busted.

Not as if they don't revoke other "rights" and make one have to have a license to have them anyway though. Such as marriage for example.

And also, consider the fact that the "privilege" of driving, can and sometimes is taken away for reasons UNRELATED to driving abuses at all. That's where the abuse in revoking of such things comes in.

Plus, according to California law, the obtaining of license gives the police the ability to give tickets. No license, no tickets, aka no money in their pockets. I think a lot of this stuff comes down to that, along with power.

BTW, are you trying to say it should be a right or not? It's hard to tell, but I sort of think you are, so want to clarify.

The difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE doesn't change because it's inconvenient.

DRIVING - for the second time - is NOT a RIGHT ... it's a PRIVILEGE.

Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Myth: BUSTED ... again.

Couldn't the same argument be made for a gun somewhat? You're not born with the ability to use a gun, nor are you born with the ability to drive. Does that mean having a gun should be a privilege too?

Yes. It would STILL be WRONG.

The SECOND AMENDMENT confers the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The STATE GRANTS the PRIVILEGE of issuing a DRIVERS LICENSE.

MYTH: BUSTED ... THIRD time.

Again, as long as people can pass an extensive mental examination, have no misdemeanors or felonies, are not a member of a militant or anti government group and know that if their gun gets stolen they get no more guns until their gun is returned to them then I am in favor of guns.

I was raised around them and have been around many who have guns.

I see far too many "legal" gun owners who are not mentally stable and should not have a weapon. I want those "legal" gun owners to be controlled so my children do not die from their stupidity.

People put too much stock into a weapon that will not be there when they need it anyway.

Besides it doesn't take too much intelligence to pull a trigger, that is a problem in my opinion.

But.......should the state have that power? I'm not so sure they should.

No thanks, I'd rather live freely then be a slave to the system.

Then you'd better consider retaining independent counsel ... you're gonna need it.

who should be in charge of making this so called extensive mental exam? a person in favor of bearing arms or a person against it? I tried to make this point in a previous reply, in order for things to be fair for everyone - then everyone should be tested. (jmo)

Intelligence is subjective, some can have book intelligence (education) streed intelligence and good old fashioned common sense which is more readily available yet even those who possess it chose when or when not to use it.

Irrelevant. They DO have that power. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? A lawyer?

They have a lot of powers they shouldn't have. Does that mean I am supposed to "be a good citizen" and love them all? If that's the case, I simply won't do it.

Makes no difference to me. You may want to make sure you have some K-Y when they bring you to Central Lockup, tho' ... Prison introduces you to all kinds of new 'friends' you never thought you'd have. Enjoy the ride.

For the record I don't drive, and if I have to submit to a devilish system to do it, maybe I just won't, and I'll find other ways.

As for the rest, you're starting to sound like the typical American anymore, who has no idea what is going on and just accepts increasingly stricter laws. I thought you were smarter then that, but apparently not. With that, I will end this conversation, as you will never understand my point of view. Good day to you sir.

Oh. You mean, "I didn't get you to say what I wanted to hear, so I'm taking my ball and going home." ... Fine. See ya. Oh - just what IS 'the typical American' you seem to so despise ... ? Would it perhaps be a veiled or coded reference to those of us who can (a) think, and (b) obey the law? If that's your 'point of view' [sic], I understand it all too well. See ya ... enjoy the ride and thank the nice policeman for saving you from yourself.

All I will say is this and then I'm done, if the law is a bunch of bullcrap, then I won't follow it. Just cause something is "law", doesn't mean it should be. If I don't agree with it, then I won't follow it. Screw them, they want my respect? Then they should give me back some of the freedoms they take away with each new law they pass. Then we can talk. Till then, screw the stupid laws.

It's because we have been blindly obeying that they have been allowed to take more and more rights from us to begin with. If we would stand up and say no, maybe they'd take notice. Think about it.