ADVERTISEMENT

Larry Aaron thread - Political posts

My bad, I thought I said for felonies. If you are going to do a crime, swing for the fences. And next time, try putting something into your own words, or use a citation. No one likes a plagiarizer.

And on the Third, it is still not a "qualifier". You have an absolute right under peacetime, war is when the Constitution goes in the shitter.

Don't tell me how to post, especially when you're wrong. No one likes you being a moron. And both the bold phrases are qualifiers.
 
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930

Is voting a constitutional right?
Who issues voter registration cards?
I guess the courts and all 50 states have it wrong then. You know more than they all do. you are better than any good lawyer.

I guess they all have it wrong for 100 years.

Driving is not the right, moron. Driving a car is operating the car. That is not a right. You can travel but that does not mean you have a right to drive/operate the car.

There is no presumptive right to drive a damn car. There is a right to travel but it does not say you have right to drive a car to get there.How you travel is not a fundamental right.

It can be argued the state cannot arbitrarily take you ability to drive if you meet the requirements. But, they certainly can stop you from driving it you can't meet the requirement. If I am blind, I can still own a gun and even purchase one. If I am blind I have no merit of being issued a license to drive.

So, why don't you go down the state police and cut up your drivers license and tell them you don't need it anymore. Might as well cancel your insurance and while you are pulling out practice your freedom of speech and give them the finger and tell them to kiss your dumb ass. Let us know how that works out.
 
Last edited:
I guess the courts and all 50 states have it wrong then. You know more than they all do. you are better than any good lawyer.

I guess they all have it wrong for 100 years.

Driving is not the right, moron. Driving a car is operating the car. That is not a right. You can travel but that does not mean you have a right to drive/operate the car.

There is no presumptive right to drive a damn car. There is a right to travel but it does not say you have right to drive a car to get there.How you travel is not a fundamental right.

It can be argued the state cannot arbitrarily take you ability to drive if you meet the requirements. But, they certainly can stop you from driving it you can't meet the requirement. If I am blind, I can still own a gun and even purchase one. If I am blind I have no merit of being issued a license to drive.

So, why don't you go down the state police and cut up your drivers license and tell them you don't need it anymore. Might as well cancel your insurance and while you are pulling out practice your freedom of speech and give them the finger and tell them to kiss your dumb ass. Let us know how that works out.

Hey, moron, read this again and see if you can get it through your trumpian filled head........

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day
 
Don't tell me how to post.

I certainly will, and just did. What are you going to do about it? Put some Xenu voodoo on me?

For fvck's sake, the citation is at the end of your block of copypasta. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970). See how easy that was to cite? See how easy it is to check if you have an original thought?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Acc...t.&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-trial-jury.html
 
I've already done something about it. I've proven a pill head to be wrong....again. You're getting stupider.
 
Hey, moron, read this again and see if you can get it through your trumpian filled head........

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day
So where does that say he has the right to drive?
 
I've already done something about it. I've proven a pill head to be wrong....again. You're getting stupider.

I'm wrong that felonies get a jury trial?

I'm wrong that laws, and rights, and different in peace and wartime?

Or I am wrong that you didn't have an original thought AND lack the grey matter to write it in your own words?
 
I'm wrong that felonies get a jury trial?

I'm wrong that laws, and rights, and different in peace and wartime?

Or I am wrong that you didn't have an original thought AND lack the grey matter to write it in your own words?

You're wrong in that I have a right both to travel and to drive. No one has argued the rest of your made up nonsense. It's just your way of attempting to change the subject after having been proven wrong...again. And there's no need to write supreme court laws and the constitution in my own words. moron.
 
I'm not even going to click on that link when I have supreme court decisions and the Constitution to back me up, moron. Maybe Breitbart can help you, or Faux.
Driving is not a right granted by the constitution. Period end of discussion
 
Last edited:
I'm not even going to click on that link when I have supreme court decisions and the Constitution to back me up, moron. Maybe Breitbart can help you, or Faux.
No you don't. You are a complete moron on this.
 
You're wrong in that I have a right both to travel and to drive.

The fvck? I never said you did. You are the dumbass saying you have a right to drive.

No one has argued the rest of your made up nonsense. It's just your way of attempting to change the subject

Bull. You first brought up voter registration, then asked a broad question about "any Constitutional right." You are senile.

And there's no need to write supreme court laws and the constitution in my own words. moron.

You know you copied and pasted to try to look smart. And you were not quoting exactly from the case, you claimed someone else's words, some writer's summary, as your own; those words are not in the Court's opinion. Oh, and SCOTUS has no "laws", that's the job of the Legislative branch. Jackass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Driving is not a right granted by the constitution. Period end of discussion

What part of the following is too difficult for you?.....Is it the conveyances?

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day.
 
What part of the following is too difficult for you?.....Is it the conveyances?

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day.
You do not have a constitutional right to drive PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
The fvck? I never said you did. You are the dumbass saying you have a right to drive.

I'll make it as simple as I know how for you, pill head. I have a right to travel AND I have a right to drive.

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago

Bull. You first brought up voter registration, then asked a broad question about "any Constitutional right." You are senile.

And you've still not come up with a Constitutional right that is without one or more qualifiers.
 
I'll make it as simple as I know how for you, pill head. I have a right to travel AND I have a right to drive.

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago

You cited a case about if regulation of buses was up to the State of Illinois or the City of Chicago? You are special.

You also seem to be getting your legal information from Freeman and militia sources. Twice you have cited cases those loons cite. You haven't found another kooky group to belong to, have you?
 
You cited a case about if regulation of buses was up to the State of Illinois or the City of Chicago? You are special.

Yeah, Illinois supreme court case. You're a moron.


You also seem to be getting your legal information from Freeman and militia sources. Twice you have cited cases those loons cite. You haven't found another kooky group to belong to, have you?

It doesn't matter if loons cite actual court cases. Pill heads have been known to do that. moron
 
my guess is Raoul is getting very close to the old Greed ignore button....he tends to do that after getting his ass kicked a few times
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
Hate to hijack this thread, but we do not need gun control. We need more harsh punishments for the thugs that run the streets shooting people. NEWSFLASH criminals are going to get guns no matter how many lists or measures you put in place.

What needs to happen is a harsher system that makes these idiots think twice before acting this and those that proceed to anyways should be removed from society. They don't wish to live in it with others in a civil manner. Instead if they do get caught they go to prison where they'll be united with more of their gangs members and just keep on keeping on until they are released. Heck our prison systems have birthed some of the gangs we have now.

These scum should be treated as the animals that they are.
Cant say thug that is racist. Of course thats a joke to me.
 
Yeah, Illinois supreme court case. You're a moron.




It doesn't matter if loons cite actual court cases. Pill heads have been known to do that. moron

I'm quite aware which court you cited (out of context, of course). Unlike you, I am educated and trained to read court decisions and case law. I actually took the time to read the entire case, the decision, and the dissent. Which brings me to the Freeman, militia, and taxes ain't legal loons....loons often quote court decisions out of context and thus completely miss the fvxking point of what is being argued or the decision handed down. Appellate court decisions routinely cite the arguments and cases they disagree with, because they are rejecting those arguments as revelant to the case before them and to make their decision narrow in scope. Then loons (and idiots like you that believe everything on the first page of a Google search without scrutinizing the source) read one damn sentence out of a multiple page ruling and totally fvck up the law. Twice you have used cases that I know this to be the case, because I looked at the Google results to see where you got your ignorant opinions from.

TLDR: One of us has an academic background in Constitutional law, one of us doesn't...the one that does not sounds like a dumbass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mufan08
I'm quite aware which court you cited (out of context, of course). Unlike you, I am educated and trained to read court decisions and case law. I actually took the time to read the entire case, the decision, and the dissent. Which brings me to the Freeman, militia, and taxes ain't legal loons....loons often quote court decisions out of context and thus completely miss the fvxking point of what is being argued or the decision handed down. Appellate court decisions routinely cite the arguments and cases they disagree with, because they are rejecting those arguments as revelant to the case before them and to make their decision narrow in scope. Then loons (and idiots like you that believe everything on the first page of a Google search without scrutinizing the source) read one damn sentence out of a multiple page ruling and totally fvck up the law. Twice you have used cases that I know this to be the case, because I looked at the Google results to see where you got your ignorant opinions from.

TLDR: One of us has an academic background in Constitutional law, one of us doesn't...the one that does not sounds like a dumbass.

Regardless of your "academic background", is this the conclusion of the court?........

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
 
Regardless of your "academic background", is this the conclusion of the court?........

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.

I'll get back to you once I return from The Land of the Ice and Snow. You wouldn't think Indianapolis would be much colder than Louisville, but damn it's brutal here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT