Except when the "issue" is a made-up one, where only one person
actually gives a sh.t.

No, you're just trolling.

Nobody in r.a.d. seems to give one little rat's a.s about your pet
project.

Maybe you'd have more luck in alt.kooks?

Now, don't get me wrong - I appreciate your motivations on the issue.
Obviously the right to drive is not your real motivation.  Your real
motivation is to have a pissing match in usenet.  Otherwise you'd go
and do something real, instead of having your face glued to a monitor.

Oh, the right to drive?  I couldn't care less.  With every other issue
out there, up to and including the stuff I have to do when I get home
tonight, it ranks right down there with the reproductive habits of
archaebacteria.

E.P.

No.  It's more like the tenth time I posted this Right-OF-LOCOMOTION
stuff, and it won't be the last.

What you call "spam", I call my soap box and my Right of Speech.
Another Right you might not be aware of.

What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no
intention of discussing the issue.

You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have
been.  I consider this issue to be of pivotal importance in many ways.
Especially so now since there intentions to attach the National ID
Abomination to Driver Licenses.  I demand our Government abide strictly
by the Constitution.  I would think you should too.

Are you afraid to find out?  Are you afraid it will put you up against
something bigger than you?  Are you afraid you;ll feel foolish for
allowing yourself to be fooled all your life?  Are you afraid of the
truth?

[snip...]

Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, which
effectively makes it Usenet spam?

The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. One can
freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor vehicle
of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... subject
to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored vehicles in their
respective area.

However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or kill
oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left
as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. As it is now, enough
so-called licensed drivers--where the license is supposed to indicate
proficiency in the knowledge of the laws of driving and competent
behind-the-wheel control of the motor vehicle--make enough driving errors
and intentional violations of various laws of driving that there are
multiple collisions reported on an hourly basis.

Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness?  Clearly, in a knee
jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me.  But, for who's
benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes?  I present you with
evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
come off with some cutesy limerick!  Are you under the impression you
proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
limericks?

You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live
without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid
doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists!  And, in
your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism,
protecting you from unwanted thought and observations.

You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site
where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown.  At the
time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly
admitted by Cities and States as a Right.
http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm

Let's try another approach at this.  Surely you would have to admit our
Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty.  And, surely you
would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on
Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways.  If you
can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself.

Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public
Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the
Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them?  Should we be limited to
only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and
are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary
manner of Travel?

And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be
prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary?  You can't!  If there
must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain
extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the
Ordinary manner of Travel.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and
other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public
Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you
have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to
Travel on other Public Right of Ways.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you
have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them.
The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday.  The
Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today.  The Ordinary
manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow.

We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any
particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right
of Way at any particular time.

snip whine

If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice
dinner, huh?

The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274

Examine this carefully.  This is YOUR Right.  You NEED to Understand
EXACTLY WHAT is your Right.

Note: "and the right, ordinarly"

Which Right?  "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another",
"of personal liberty", "of free transit".  AKA: Personal Travel.

How?  "ordinarly".

Where?  "from or through the territory of any state".  AKA: Public
Property.

We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on
Public Property.

Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there
will be those who still don't understand what their Right is.

Let me rephrase it.  On any particular stretch of Public Property, you
have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that
stretch.

On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we
have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks.

On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we
have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails.

What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways?

It is, of course, the Automobile.

On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we
have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways.