Well ya, it’s not like I’m going to reply to every single post on this thread. That would take too much time.
I don’t support them in their current form. It’s issued by a private business that has a legal monopoly.
Because people in the US are entitled twats.
They think that “land of the free” means they can do anything and have everything for free.
Cite your sources please. I’d sure as hell like to know where this came from.
I believe that is a misquote from thompson v smith Which eden actually posted the case law where he took it from there after.
The supreme court of The United States of America.
Just spent some time pouring over the docs of thompson v smith. That quote is so hilariously out of context and the case is only tangentially relevant to this situation.
The SC essentially said that while they couldn’t revoke his license in that situation, governments have every right to require licenses or impose reasonable restrictions.
Well up here you even need a license to ride a Horse on the public road.
That’s interesting. It 100% makes sense though.
Wow. That sounds like it’s illegal.
In Australia you dont need a licence for a horse or bicycle. However you can be charged for riding under the influence. Not sure on speeding.
Not really. I think the reasoning will have to do with “you are not powering the vehicle yourself” and “knowing the law for taking part in traffic”
It’s mostly that.
I am unsure of riding a horse on public roads, but no license needed for bicycle operation. However you certainly can be cited for operating a horse or bicycle under the influence.
You basiclly have to take lessons and do a theoretical and practical exame,
kinda similar to wenn you would get a motorcycle license.
Not only traffic laws, but also specific things related to Horse riding you need to know.
So basically the same as here. Makes sense as NL and DE are right next to each other^^
I was riding small horses since I was 4. And have only need to know the basics.
There is a guy that comes into the shop I work at that claims, the state government owns you if you agree that the name on your birth certificate is you. The theory being that they own the document so they own the person it describes and if you identify as that person they own you.
This all sounds a LOT like this whole discussion, you can’t suppose your way out of a driver’s license or state ID as they are referenced too, with a logic error caused by misunderstood syntax
Well it’s a good thing this is 2018 and you can identify as an Apache attack helicopter if you want.
Did you just assume my aeronautical preference?