TexasCHLforum.com

Since background checks are so beneficial to those who decide to exercise their RKBA, and since the infringement of having to subject oneself to the whims of the state and fed to exercise one's rights is good for me as a person, I propose that anyone applying for a drivers license and state issued ID card should have the background check performed on them.

Since driving is a privelidge and identification is necessary what with the global war on terror and drugs and so many criminals fall through the cracks then the checks would do a lot to eliminate crime and keep us safe.

Then we could all pack without a permit. Why should we be the only ones who go through the background investigation?

Anygunanywhere

+1

I disagree.

How much would the state have to charge for the driver's license to finance the BI? How many drivers would stand for such a requirement? It'd be a non-starter from the beginning.

It's similar to some of the requirements levied on pilots. If those requirements were applied to drivers, the outcry would stop it before it got started.

Fine..then the minimum requirement to get ANY social handout (WIC, food stamps, welfare...) the applicant MUST take and pass a urine test...MONTHLY, if the applicant fails...they IMMEDIATELY loose the right to that assistance...PERIOD!

How about losing your right to vote when you go on the public dole? You wanna talk about nipping a problem in the bud!

bdickens wrote:How about losing your right to vote when you go on the public dole? You wanna talk about nipping a problem in the bud!

Unless you are a felon..your right to vote is guaranteed..sorry, I spent 6 years of my life defending even the most stupid of people the RIGHT to freedom..and voting is a freedom.

i would go as far to say many people in question don't vote.

Oh, I hear ya. I spent a good portion of my life defending the freedoms of those freeloaders, too. But we have a whole class of professional couch potatos who get a paycheck from the government every month for doing nothing but sucking up other people's oxygen. Every election cycle they vote for whoever will promise them ever-increasing amounts of largese courtesy of the US taxpayer. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I have stood in line, in uniform, at the grocery store behind someone who was eating WAY better than me, judging by what was in their cart, only to see them whip out the food stamps. Yeah, it upset me to be paying for someone else's groceries who ate better than I did.

If welfare was a temporary help for hard times instead of a way of life, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

bdickens wrote:Oh, I hear ya. I spent a good portion of my life defending the freedoms of those freeloaders, too. But we have a whole class of professional couch potatos who get a paycheck from the government every month for doing nothing but sucking up other people's oxygen. Every election cycle they vote for whoever will promise them ever-increasing amounts of largese courtesy of the US taxpayer. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I have stood in line, in uniform, at the grocery store behind someone who was eating WAY better than me, judging by what was in their cart, only to see them whip out the food stamps. Yeah, it upset me to be paying for someone else's groceries who ate better than I did.

If welfare was a temporary help for hard times instead of a way of life, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

Preaching to the choir brother...

In order to truly not go tinfoil hatter on you, I believe those that serve (as in civil servants/military) should have the right to vote..all others are civilians...NOT citizens, but our founding fathers never intended America to be that way...unfortunately

I thought DPS already checks for wants and warrants when you get a DL or renew a DL. I assume, but do not know, that DPS also checks wants and warrants when one get a state ID. What kind of offense(s), do you suggest, would disqualify someone from getting a DL?

pt145ss wrote:I thought DPS already checks for wants and warrants when you get a DL or renew a DL. I assume, but do not know, that DPS also checks wants and warrants when one get a state ID. What kind of offense(s), do you suggest, would disqualify someone from getting a DL?

Why not the same as a CHL? People don't have a constitutional right to own and drive cars, so it's a reasonable restriction.

No felons. No illegal aliens. No addicts. No delinquency on taxes or student loans.

I like it!

Molon_labe wrote:

bdickens wrote:Oh, I hear ya. I spent a good portion of my life defending the freedoms of those freeloaders, too. But we have a whole class of professional couch potatos who get a paycheck from the government every month for doing nothing but sucking up other people's oxygen. Every election cycle they vote for whoever will promise them ever-increasing amounts of largese courtesy of the US taxpayer. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I have stood in line, in uniform, at the grocery store behind someone who was eating WAY better than me, judging by what was in their cart, only to see them whip out the food stamps. Yeah, it upset me to be paying for someone else's groceries who ate better than I did.

If welfare was a temporary help for hard times instead of a way of life, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

Preaching to the choir brother...

In order to truly not go tinfoil hatter on you, I believe those that serve (as in civil servants/military) should have the right to vote..all others are civilians...NOT citizens, but our founding fathers never intended America to be that way...unfortunately

OORAH!

Or.....

We could return to the Constitution, and stop pretending that we need the government's permission to travel, to bear arms, to have a job, or any of the other thousands of things that now require government licenses or permits.

boomerang wrote:

pt145ss wrote:I thought DPS already checks for wants and warrants when you get a DL or renew a DL. I assume, but do not know, that DPS also checks wants and warrants when one get a state ID. What kind of offense(s), do you suggest, would disqualify someone from getting a DL?

Why not the same as a CHL? People don't have a constitutional right to own and drive cars, so it's a reasonable restriction.

No felons. No illegal aliens. No addicts. No delinquency on taxes or student loans.

I like it!

Felon can mean a lot of things that does not make someone ill-suited to drive on public roadways (or own guns for that matter).

Illegal aliens cannot get drivers licenses, at least here.

How do you define addict? The government would define someone who got busted for possession of marijuana an addict, but the government definition by no means has a basis in reality. I'm no pot smoker, but I see serious problems with the war on drugs. I do not want to delve into a discussion on drugs and related laws, so I'll leave it at that.

Are you suggesting that someone with back-taxes or overdue student loans have means of transportation taken from them so that it is nearly impossible to maintain steady employment and pay the money owed? If we're going to go that route, I suggest debtor's prison.

Also, in response to:

Russell wrote:

Molon_labe wrote:

bdickens wrote:Oh, I hear ya. I spent a good portion of my life defending the freedoms of those freeloaders, too. But we have a whole class of professional couch potatos who get a paycheck from the government every month for doing nothing but sucking up other people's oxygen. Every election cycle they vote for whoever will promise them ever-increasing amounts of largese courtesy of the US taxpayer. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I have stood in line, in uniform, at the grocery store behind someone who was eating WAY better than me, judging by what was in their cart, only to see them whip out the food stamps. Yeah, it upset me to be paying for someone else's groceries who ate better than I did.

If welfare was a temporary help for hard times instead of a way of life, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

Preaching to the choir brother...

In order to truly not go tinfoil hatter on you, I believe those that serve (as in civil servants/military) should have the right to vote..all others are civilians...NOT citizens, but our founding fathers never intended America to be that way...unfortunately

I disagree. Strongly. Just because I have not served in the military or law enforcement does not mean I should not have a right to vote.

I pay taxes. My taxes pay for your salary.

I get to vote.

I'm with Russell. When this country was founded, we had volunteer militias. They were not professional soldiers. They were citizens with other jobs who stepped up to meet a need when it was necessary. Organized military did not come into existence in this country until later. Throughout the history of this country, ordinary citizens have volunteered or been called up to serve in the military when the standing army was insufficient to meet the needs of the conflict. Is the wartime-only soldier second class because he would not have been there if there wasn't a war?

Military service as a profession is not for everyone. To say that someone should be unable to vote because he or she has never served in the military is not only ludicrous but insulting. Many of the technologies employed by the military are developed by people who spend their entire lives devoting themselves to that work. They play just as crucial a role in the functioning of the military as the soldier, and to reduce them to sub-citizen status derides the work and lives of millions of Americans. The public as a whole makes it possible to fund the operation of the military. The fact that you dismiss that contribution greatly concerns me.