As amazing as this sounds, the NRA backed gun control....

Post Reply New Topic

Would you say that anyone of legal age and is not under court supervision should be allowed to own AND operate a motor vehicle on public roads? What is your opinion on requiring that a person operating or using a potentially dangerous instrument, machine or weapon show that his is qualified to use same -safely-..

I don't like the idea of blind drunk people or people whacked out on drugs to go out in the open brandishing loaded fire arms. I dislike this as much as I dislike blind drunk people out on the roads driving and endangering the rest of us.

ruveyn

DUI's a separate law, yes, I'd support police being able to arrest or detain people who are openly carrying firearms while drunk or intoxicated.

As far as driving goes, it generally works out that way anyway, unless you're blind or something. The license is "shall issue" and not "may issue." You can't pass the test and just have the driving instructor be like "you know, I don't like your attitude" and not issue you a license, whereas for carry permits this often happens.

Ideally for car licenses, though, I'd not have them. I'd just require mandatory insurance. Then insurance would handle testing to determine rates by their own standards. Basically, the positive of my privatized system would be that the insurance companies, unlike the DMV, in testing and "licensing" would first off have more of a vested interest in the testing, as they're the ones who pay if you crash. Also, if the insurance company determines through their testing that you're a good driver, you can pay less money than someone they determine as a risky or bad driver (currently the only thing insurance has to go by is after the fact, crashing or tickets.) And of course you could do more testing or classes or licensing through them to get a cheaper rate. If insurance got significantly cheaper if we put people out on skidpads like in Finland or something for a driving test, you'd bet people here would go out on the skidpad.

As far as determining who couldn't drive, let's take someone who gets in trouble for a DUI or something. Court orders you no driving for X months or years. DMV orders the same thing (redundancy.) So it's quite as simple as that, in probation or discharge or release conditions, saying "no driving for 1 year, mandatory class" but that's apart of court conditions. So people who do bad things driving are punished in court, and court determines when they'll get their rights back, after completing a specified amount of time called probation, your rights get restored. Of course if the court sees fit, they can do LONG periods or even lifetime periods of probation, supervision, or court orders, so if someone is that unfit at driving, the court just says so and that's that. So in that aspect, a driver's license is more just irrelevant.

So I hope I answered the question in some way.