45acpSHOOTER
member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 32
Thats what it is all about.
Take the above statement from the article. Delete any reference to drunk drivers and insert gun owners.
Sheer MADD-ness: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition
- Thread starter roo_ster
- Start date
- Status
Thats what it is all about.
Take the above statement from the article. Delete any reference to drunk drivers and insert gun owners.
cropcirclewalker
member
I yam saddened by some of the responses here. We are screwed. This is a pro gun group and we hear the hackneyed expression, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people."
I cannot understand how a rational person could firmly believe the above and then somehow ascribe killing properties to alcohol. I feel like I am talking to children and I know I am not.
The socialists and authoratarians have joined together on this one and they have won. As more and more of us become products of the public schools more and more of us will become blind to the oppressive weights of the prior restraint laws.
Enjoy yer guns now fellers. We are screwed.
I cannot understand how a rational person could firmly believe the above and then somehow ascribe killing properties to alcohol. I feel like I am talking to children and I know I am not.
The socialists and authoratarians have joined together on this one and they have won. As more and more of us become products of the public schools more and more of us will become blind to the oppressive weights of the prior restraint laws.
Enjoy yer guns now fellers. We are screwed.
CAnnoneer
Member
That is not a fair comparison. Guns do not impair judgment, while alcohol/drugs do. Also, I bet most people do much more driving than they do shooting.
45acpSHOOTER
member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 32
It could read in the future:
the threat to public health posed by Firearms was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause.
jashobeam
Member
I now think that driving after drinking is foolish
I feel that driving after having been drinking is foolish not so much because I am convinced that everyone who does so poses a threat to society, but because I now know first hand how easy it is to get pulled over by the police and fail a field sobriety test.
Before I continue with my tale I'd like to say that in our culture, in California anyway, it is acceptable to drink and drive--despite all of the propaganda and slogans that attempt to convince us otherwise. Nearly everyone I know of who drinks, also drives after drinking. What all of the education against drunk driving has done is make those who are caught and convicted more ready to accept their fate as lawbreakers. Once caught, it suddenly becomes so clear--all of the warnings you ever heard--that you should have known better not to drink and drive. Even though many people do drink and drive, few people truly sympathize with those who receive DUI's because "everyone knows you shouldn't drink and drive."
I hope that it is not a mistake to reveal my personal experience on this forum in which I so enjoy participating. The night I was arrested I had been drinking with friends. At one point I announced that we would be taking a cab ride home. Later, however, around closing time, I became hungry and decided to drive my friends to get food and then to their homes. Hours later, after driving all over town, I had dropped off the last of my friends and was driving in an upscale residential area when I noticed a cop behind me which instantly lit up and pulled me over. The officer said I had rolled through a stop sign and that I was speeding. Many of you readers will probably not believe that I was able to accurately gauge my own driving, but I am thoroughly convinced that I did NOT fail to completely stop and that I was not speeding. The biggest thing I have realized out of all that happened as a result of that encounter is that the police can pull you over for absolutely NO REAL REASON. They can make up ANY REASON to pull you over, and if by chance you have done "wrong" or are doing "wrong" then the officer's gamble will pay off.
I failed two of the field sobriety tests: In the thumb-to-finger ascending and descending count-off test (1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1...) I completed 4 circuits when apparently I was told to only complete 3; on the heel-toe walk I stumbled on my first step after turning around to walk back toward the officer. BTW, my BAC was .11. You should know that, in a way, your Fifth Amendment rights DO NOT apply when you are suspected of DUI. You can refuse to say anything that might incriminate yourself and you can refuse to participate in the field sobriety tests (you will be arrested anyway if you do not allow the FST), but you cannot refuse a chemical test administered by the officer. There is an "implied consent statute" that obligates motorists to provide a chemical specimen if the officer has probable cause to believe the motorist is driving drunk. I am not looking to convince anyone that I was wrongfully arrested or accused. I just want to make everyone aware of the details of my initial stop and subsequent punishment.
Let me say at this point that I accept full responsibility for having chosen to drive while intoxicated. I should not have been driving. If someone had run out in front of my car I would not have been AS ABLE to react as if I'd been sober. I had become careless with drinking and driving. I thought very little about it. I figured that somehow a DUI would not happen to me. DO NOT THINK LIKE I DID!! Anyone doing anything wrong can be caught at any time. Chances are, if you are a relatively good, law-abiding citizen, the person caught doing "wrong" will be you instead of some hardened criminal (Murphy's Law?).
Once arrested, I was treated like a criminal. Earlier, I was enjoying the friendship and comraderie of my companions; later, I experienced the contempt shown to thieves, gangsters, and any other bad person. This type of treatment has been consistent throughout my arrest, booking, detainment, release, pre-booking (for weekend work program), attending the DUI school orientation, and will probably remain consistent during my weekend work which starts next weekend. I am used to being treated as a respectable citizen. When I patronize an establishment, I expect to be treated as a valuable customer. This does not happen once you find yourself on "the wrong side" of the law; your money and your time mean nothing to those who have gained control over you. Although I do understand that I was driving under the influence and COULD HAVE been in an accident and injured or even killed another human being, I have at times struggled with the notion that I am being punished without actually having done anything wrong (meaning that nothing adverse actually resulted from my driving that evening). What if the police entered your house for a false reason and found your gun under your pillow and arrested you, made you attend classes, took away your license, and raised your insurance rates astronomically (my auto insurance may triple) because someone could have been killed by your gun. This is just how I feel sometimes. But the reality is that I broke a law that I was well aware of. I did so knowingly. In fact, I am glad for this experience because I have learned my leason and honestly doubt that I will ever again drive after having even one drink. The experience was, and still is and will continue to be for many years, that bad. Though no harm was done that night by me, perhaps in the future under similar circumstances I could have been in an accident which resulted in harm or death. Even if the accident wasn't my fault, if I'd been drinking, the blame would surely have been placed upon me. That is reality.
LEARN A LESSON FROM ME.
I feel that driving after having been drinking is foolish not so much because I am convinced that everyone who does so poses a threat to society, but because I now know first hand how easy it is to get pulled over by the police and fail a field sobriety test.
Before I continue with my tale I'd like to say that in our culture, in California anyway, it is acceptable to drink and drive--despite all of the propaganda and slogans that attempt to convince us otherwise. Nearly everyone I know of who drinks, also drives after drinking. What all of the education against drunk driving has done is make those who are caught and convicted more ready to accept their fate as lawbreakers. Once caught, it suddenly becomes so clear--all of the warnings you ever heard--that you should have known better not to drink and drive. Even though many people do drink and drive, few people truly sympathize with those who receive DUI's because "everyone knows you shouldn't drink and drive."
I hope that it is not a mistake to reveal my personal experience on this forum in which I so enjoy participating. The night I was arrested I had been drinking with friends. At one point I announced that we would be taking a cab ride home. Later, however, around closing time, I became hungry and decided to drive my friends to get food and then to their homes. Hours later, after driving all over town, I had dropped off the last of my friends and was driving in an upscale residential area when I noticed a cop behind me which instantly lit up and pulled me over. The officer said I had rolled through a stop sign and that I was speeding. Many of you readers will probably not believe that I was able to accurately gauge my own driving, but I am thoroughly convinced that I did NOT fail to completely stop and that I was not speeding. The biggest thing I have realized out of all that happened as a result of that encounter is that the police can pull you over for absolutely NO REAL REASON. They can make up ANY REASON to pull you over, and if by chance you have done "wrong" or are doing "wrong" then the officer's gamble will pay off.
I failed two of the field sobriety tests: In the thumb-to-finger ascending and descending count-off test (1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1...) I completed 4 circuits when apparently I was told to only complete 3; on the heel-toe walk I stumbled on my first step after turning around to walk back toward the officer. BTW, my BAC was .11. You should know that, in a way, your Fifth Amendment rights DO NOT apply when you are suspected of DUI. You can refuse to say anything that might incriminate yourself and you can refuse to participate in the field sobriety tests (you will be arrested anyway if you do not allow the FST), but you cannot refuse a chemical test administered by the officer. There is an "implied consent statute" that obligates motorists to provide a chemical specimen if the officer has probable cause to believe the motorist is driving drunk. I am not looking to convince anyone that I was wrongfully arrested or accused. I just want to make everyone aware of the details of my initial stop and subsequent punishment.
Let me say at this point that I accept full responsibility for having chosen to drive while intoxicated. I should not have been driving. If someone had run out in front of my car I would not have been AS ABLE to react as if I'd been sober. I had become careless with drinking and driving. I thought very little about it. I figured that somehow a DUI would not happen to me. DO NOT THINK LIKE I DID!! Anyone doing anything wrong can be caught at any time. Chances are, if you are a relatively good, law-abiding citizen, the person caught doing "wrong" will be you instead of some hardened criminal (Murphy's Law?).
Once arrested, I was treated like a criminal. Earlier, I was enjoying the friendship and comraderie of my companions; later, I experienced the contempt shown to thieves, gangsters, and any other bad person. This type of treatment has been consistent throughout my arrest, booking, detainment, release, pre-booking (for weekend work program), attending the DUI school orientation, and will probably remain consistent during my weekend work which starts next weekend. I am used to being treated as a respectable citizen. When I patronize an establishment, I expect to be treated as a valuable customer. This does not happen once you find yourself on "the wrong side" of the law; your money and your time mean nothing to those who have gained control over you. Although I do understand that I was driving under the influence and COULD HAVE been in an accident and injured or even killed another human being, I have at times struggled with the notion that I am being punished without actually having done anything wrong (meaning that nothing adverse actually resulted from my driving that evening). What if the police entered your house for a false reason and found your gun under your pillow and arrested you, made you attend classes, took away your license, and raised your insurance rates astronomically (my auto insurance may triple) because someone could have been killed by your gun. This is just how I feel sometimes. But the reality is that I broke a law that I was well aware of. I did so knowingly. In fact, I am glad for this experience because I have learned my leason and honestly doubt that I will ever again drive after having even one drink. The experience was, and still is and will continue to be for many years, that bad. Though no harm was done that night by me, perhaps in the future under similar circumstances I could have been in an accident which resulted in harm or death. Even if the accident wasn't my fault, if I'd been drinking, the blame would surely have been placed upon me. That is reality.
LEARN A LESSON FROM ME.
Cannoneer, you hit the nail on the head.
The only comparison that should be made between alcohol use and gun ownership is the mental capacity of those who choose to own and use either. You wouldn't give a firearm to somebody who couldn't understand the ramifications of improper use. Nobody argues that, we don't see in the news that a pitchfork and torch villager uprising happened because a FFL dealer refused a sale to a Downs Syndrome patient.
Likewise, one doesn't enable somebody diminished in mental capacity by alcohol to maneuver several thousand pounds of steel, glass, plastic, and rubber at high speed on public roads. The vehicle at that point is a deadly weapon, and people die when that deadly weapon is under the control of a drunk. I know that first-hand, read my post above.
BTW, Cropcirclewalker,
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers kill people.
The only comparison that should be made between alcohol use and gun ownership is the mental capacity of those who choose to own and use either. You wouldn't give a firearm to somebody who couldn't understand the ramifications of improper use. Nobody argues that, we don't see in the news that a pitchfork and torch villager uprising happened because a FFL dealer refused a sale to a Downs Syndrome patient.
Likewise, one doesn't enable somebody diminished in mental capacity by alcohol to maneuver several thousand pounds of steel, glass, plastic, and rubber at high speed on public roads. The vehicle at that point is a deadly weapon, and people die when that deadly weapon is under the control of a drunk. I know that first-hand, read my post above.
BTW, Cropcirclewalker,
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers kill people.
Valkman
Member
We all know that alcohol and guns is a bad combo but we have people here saying driving and drinking is ok. If you get caught driving with alcohol in you, and are above the legal limit, I believe no sentence is too much including going to jail for the rest of your life. People here don't get it, and the penalties are such that people do it over and over again. If you think drinking and driving is such a great thing go walk around a casino after Monday Night Football and dodge all the drunks driving home. Yea it's great.
beerslurpy
member
Whatever happened to punishing people when they harm others?
Punishing people when they do something that merely increases their risk of harming another is a slippery slope that I think most gun owners do not want to travel down. It is impossible to own weapons without increasing the risk to those around you. You make a good-faith effort to manage that risk and hope that nothing ever goes wrong.
I personally dont drive drunk, but I am deeply suspicious of breathalyzer tests and deeply suspicious of giving police pretexts to detain motorists. It is less a question of whether drunk driving is good or bad, but a question of whether there should be a substance abuse exception to the 4th amendment. The same logic that causes us to decry gun control laws erected in the wake of a massacre should cause us to be similarly critical and suspicious of DUI laws that target everyone because of a small minority that will drink a fifth of bourbon and hit the road in their camaro for a night of street racing.
Many cops dont feel threatened by an encroaching police state because they work for the police. They see little likelihood that the system will be used against them and they dont mind that their jobs are much easier to do. When the State is no longer constrained by the constitiution, government employees have easy lives. So why have liberty? It only inconveniences the agents of the king!
Punishing people when they do something that merely increases their risk of harming another is a slippery slope that I think most gun owners do not want to travel down. It is impossible to own weapons without increasing the risk to those around you. You make a good-faith effort to manage that risk and hope that nothing ever goes wrong.
I personally dont drive drunk, but I am deeply suspicious of breathalyzer tests and deeply suspicious of giving police pretexts to detain motorists. It is less a question of whether drunk driving is good or bad, but a question of whether there should be a substance abuse exception to the 4th amendment. The same logic that causes us to decry gun control laws erected in the wake of a massacre should cause us to be similarly critical and suspicious of DUI laws that target everyone because of a small minority that will drink a fifth of bourbon and hit the road in their camaro for a night of street racing.
Many cops dont feel threatened by an encroaching police state because they work for the police. They see little likelihood that the system will be used against them and they dont mind that their jobs are much easier to do. When the State is no longer constrained by the constitiution, government employees have easy lives. So why have liberty? It only inconveniences the agents of the king!
ghost squire
member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 339
This is probably wrong, but what came to mind is fascism? Derived from fasces.
spartacus2002
Member
Bingo. Imposing state control over all aspects of life, particularly when it closely aligns corporate interests with the interests of the state.
cropcirclewalker
member
Yes. That is called 'prior restraint'.
Many authoritarians want to criminilize what we put in our bodies. Many liberals want to criminilize what we put in our minds (or on our hips). It's the same thing.
To drink and drive shows poor judgement. Freedom with responsibility requires that one take responsibility for their poor judgement.
Poor judgement things one can do while driving;
drinking
talking on phone
eating a whopper
putting on makeup
reading
watching TV
changing cds
bopping out to some good ol' country rocker
flipping off an errant driver
obsessive looking in mirror
not looking in mirror
speeding
not speeding
These are all things which display poor judgement. Regardless, many, many times the driver can do these things (including drinking) without getting into an accident.
In most cases when an accident occurs because a driver is doing one of the above......they call it an accident. Prosecutions usually only occur because of the drinking or speeding. Why? Poor Judgement. Is it a crime?
Perhaps you authoritarians out there would also like to criminilize these things too.....except for the speeding, which we all do, so it shouldn't be a crime.
cropcirclewalker
member
Thank you. All I could think of was 'Faggot'. You know the bundle of sticks with the axe blade on the back of a dime.
Joe Critter lives next to the High School football stadium. During the Homecoming Game, Joe gets an urge to sight in his .338 Weatherby and punches 30 rounds through the Home section of the stadium, but for the grace of God and little green hop-toads Joe doesn't hit anyone.
By your logic, since Joe didn't "harm others" everything is just roses?
Why do I always see the active act of driving drunk compared with the passive act of firearms ownership?
Driving drunk is not the same as owning a firearm.
A proper comparison would be: owning a firearm is similar to owning a bottle of booze. The mere owning a firearm and ammunition is similar to the owning a bottle of booze and a car. The act of owning something, be it a firearm, a bottle of booze, or a car, is passive.
Driving drunk on a public highway is similar to shooting at a public football stadium. Both actions are active. Both actions require a conscious decision to perform actions that reasonable people have decided present a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
The drunk may not hit anyone in the thirty miles to his house, and the idiot may not hit anyone with the thirty rounds he fires into the football stadium, but that doesn't mean they should have a free pass to do it again next Friday, just because nobody got hit this time.
LawDog
grampster
Member
Jashobeam's post was very telling and revealing. He speaks the truth. The problem with .08 bieng too low, that is not necessarily the problem entirely. Another part of the problem is a zealot with a badge. Before I'm accused of leo bashing, I was one for several years, have many contacts yet today, and most of my friends are in LE or the court system. I know what I'm talking about and the problem exists.
The facts seem to indicate that most deaths and injury is caused by BAC over .15, or by alcoholic scofflaws that are constantly trashed and driving. That behavior is wrong and should be punished severely. But....
Some police officers build reputations for arresting "drunk drivers". I know as I worked with guys like that. While I am not defending driving while drinking, we are quickly getting to the point where we have a punative culture that seeks to punish people severely and for years for infractions that that may not have been a danger to anyone. The fact is, being caught for .08 may indeed happen because the leo invented a reason to pull you over merely because it was late at night, wrong neighborhood, or leaving a restaurant that serves alcohol. How can you defend yourself from a wrongful, illegal pullover when Officer Friendly got lucky when you blew .08. To say that if you had not been drinking you would not have been in trouble parallels allowing an officer to stop and frisk you for no reason other than "public safety". We do have some rights, after all, and we need to be careful that they are not trounced. Some folks are willing to make rules about anything to grind an ax.
Whether anyone wants to recognize this as a problem or not, it does exist. Thousands of dollars in fines, loss of job, draconian requirements of attending classes, being required to admit one is an alcoholic or be accused of being in "denial". Insurance rates through the roof for several years, restricted license for maybe a year and the list goes on. All for havin 3 or 4 beers over a couple of hours and driving carefuly into the net of a predatory officer.
We defend our rights with regard to firearms. Yet who stands for the poor sap that has 3 or 4 beers over a couple of hours, is basically harmless, being careful and runs afoul of the legal system that is out of control, starting with predatory police officers looking to pad a resume with MADD.
Life is full of risks and people will be injured and killed because of drunk out of control drivers. That is bad. But a lot of lives are being screwed up on the other side of the page because some among us wish to restrict freedom to gain a little safety. Someone else talked about that a long time ago and expressed that truth better than I.
The facts seem to indicate that most deaths and injury is caused by BAC over .15, or by alcoholic scofflaws that are constantly trashed and driving. That behavior is wrong and should be punished severely. But....
Some police officers build reputations for arresting "drunk drivers". I know as I worked with guys like that. While I am not defending driving while drinking, we are quickly getting to the point where we have a punative culture that seeks to punish people severely and for years for infractions that that may not have been a danger to anyone. The fact is, being caught for .08 may indeed happen because the leo invented a reason to pull you over merely because it was late at night, wrong neighborhood, or leaving a restaurant that serves alcohol. How can you defend yourself from a wrongful, illegal pullover when Officer Friendly got lucky when you blew .08. To say that if you had not been drinking you would not have been in trouble parallels allowing an officer to stop and frisk you for no reason other than "public safety". We do have some rights, after all, and we need to be careful that they are not trounced. Some folks are willing to make rules about anything to grind an ax.
Whether anyone wants to recognize this as a problem or not, it does exist. Thousands of dollars in fines, loss of job, draconian requirements of attending classes, being required to admit one is an alcoholic or be accused of being in "denial". Insurance rates through the roof for several years, restricted license for maybe a year and the list goes on. All for havin 3 or 4 beers over a couple of hours and driving carefuly into the net of a predatory officer.
We defend our rights with regard to firearms. Yet who stands for the poor sap that has 3 or 4 beers over a couple of hours, is basically harmless, being careful and runs afoul of the legal system that is out of control, starting with predatory police officers looking to pad a resume with MADD.
Life is full of risks and people will be injured and killed because of drunk out of control drivers. That is bad. But a lot of lives are being screwed up on the other side of the page because some among us wish to restrict freedom to gain a little safety. Someone else talked about that a long time ago and expressed that truth better than I.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I can remember when MADD was a very new, daring organization. It seems to have become very well established after 25 years.
beerslurpy
member
Lawdog, you argue as if you beleive drunkenness to be a simple on/off state of mind. I know you dont actually beleive this, but that is how the law currently reads. 0.079999 and you get off scott-free- .000001 higher and you are subjected to all sorts of terrible penalties. Rather than directly ascertaining someone's incapacitation level, the law currently substitutes a machine test which measures this in a very indirect way.
Drunkenness spans a wide range of mental states which are associated with different risks. Different people handle different levels of intoxication differently. The only reason a single number is used to define "drunkenness" is because that is what the machine can measure, and it is much harder to argue with a number from a machine than it is to argue with the recollection of a police officer. In any case, people do not switch from being entirely sober to being completely incoherent at .08- it is more like a steady progression into dangerous behavior that begins at a certain number of drinks- a certain different number for every person.
It is easier to simply make the law a matter of not exceeding numbers that are measured on machines, because then the state no longer has to establish mens rea or deal with the imperfect recollection of the officer. This is a trick they learned from speed traps. I feel it is a significant and dangerous deviation from the traditional way in which crimes were tried. Strict liability laws should generally be avoided in a free society.
Ironically, being drunk on a non-alcoholic form of depressant would cause someone to blow clean but still be completely intoxicated. Many drugs can only be detected by taking a blood sample. How do the police find and detain users of qualudes, ghb or weed?
Drunkenness spans a wide range of mental states which are associated with different risks. Different people handle different levels of intoxication differently. The only reason a single number is used to define "drunkenness" is because that is what the machine can measure, and it is much harder to argue with a number from a machine than it is to argue with the recollection of a police officer. In any case, people do not switch from being entirely sober to being completely incoherent at .08- it is more like a steady progression into dangerous behavior that begins at a certain number of drinks- a certain different number for every person.
It is easier to simply make the law a matter of not exceeding numbers that are measured on machines, because then the state no longer has to establish mens rea or deal with the imperfect recollection of the officer. This is a trick they learned from speed traps. I feel it is a significant and dangerous deviation from the traditional way in which crimes were tried. Strict liability laws should generally be avoided in a free society.
Ironically, being drunk on a non-alcoholic form of depressant would cause someone to blow clean but still be completely intoxicated. Many drugs can only be detected by taking a blood sample. How do the police find and detain users of qualudes, ghb or weed?
cropcirclewalker
member
Simpletons are as simpletons do....
Surely you coulda come up with a better example. Are their no laws against damaging public property? Discharging a firearm within the city limits? Stupidity on the verge of being a Democrat?
Crime is best defined as the wrongful taking on another's life, liberty, or property.
So, Mr. Critter watches the super bowl at the neighbor's house. He has two beers. The good guys win. He gets in his car and drives the half mile home. No accidents. No soberiety checks. He arrives, goes inside and tells the missus about the wardrobe malfunction and goes to bed.
Is everything roses? Is he a criminal?
Cheese!
Active vs passive. A hoot. How about walking into the post office while owning a firearm on your hip?
How about trying to enter an airliner while owning a firearm in your briefcase?
For the Washington DCers......How about owning a firearm?
Gimme a break. All of these Crimes are prior restraint and no more repugnant than the crime of driving while intoxicated.
Alas.
Surely you coulda come up with a better example. Are their no laws against damaging public property? Discharging a firearm within the city limits? Stupidity on the verge of being a Democrat?
Crime is best defined as the wrongful taking on another's life, liberty, or property.
So, Mr. Critter watches the super bowl at the neighbor's house. He has two beers. The good guys win. He gets in his car and drives the half mile home. No accidents. No soberiety checks. He arrives, goes inside and tells the missus about the wardrobe malfunction and goes to bed.
Is everything roses? Is he a criminal?
Cheese!
Active vs passive. A hoot. How about walking into the post office while owning a firearm on your hip?
How about trying to enter an airliner while owning a firearm in your briefcase?
For the Washington DCers......How about owning a firearm?
Gimme a break. All of these Crimes are prior restraint and no more repugnant than the crime of driving while intoxicated.
Cropcirclewalker, you may want to refrain from ad hominem attacks...
Especially when pointed directly at forum moderators. Bad juju, that.
And we get your analogy with the superbowl drinker/driver. Something along the lines of "it ain't illegal until you're caught." Nice.
Pray to whichever deity works in your world that you don't lose a family member to a drunk driver. It isn't all it's cracked up to be, and offers very little in the way of entertainment value. Trust me.
Of course, it wouldn't be illegal if I shot my brother's killer if they didn't catch me afterwards, right?
Especially when pointed directly at forum moderators. Bad juju, that.
And we get your analogy with the superbowl drinker/driver. Something along the lines of "it ain't illegal until you're caught." Nice.
Pray to whichever deity works in your world that you don't lose a family member to a drunk driver. It isn't all it's cracked up to be, and offers very little in the way of entertainment value. Trust me.
Of course, it wouldn't be illegal if I shot my brother's killer if they didn't catch me afterwards, right?
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Gewehr98, please do not presuppose that
I am somehow impervious to your loss. I have been trying to avoid responding because sometimes the loss of a loved one causes one to become irrational.
You apparently need to keep beating me over the head with it. I am real sorry that you lost your brother.
It is not my fault.
I have drinked and drived. Not recently since I live in the woods and have no place to go, but, yes, I have drinked and drived. I did not kill your brother.
I did not kill your brother
Mr. Lawdog made reference to a certain Mr. Critter. Mr. Critter is a simpleton.
If, for some reason, you ascribe the actions of the simpleton, Mr. Critter to Mr. Lawdog, then you are really screwed up.
Mr. Critter is a simpleton. He discharges a firearm into a group of people, depending on his sense of accuracy to protect him from doing physical harm to the citizens.
Mr. Lawdog is an authoritarion. He thinks that people should be prohibited from doing things that might be dangerous, based on certain assumptions such as the obvious danger of running with scissors.
I am somehow impervious to your loss. I have been trying to avoid responding because sometimes the loss of a loved one causes one to become irrational.
You apparently need to keep beating me over the head with it. I am real sorry that you lost your brother.
It is not my fault.
I have drinked and drived. Not recently since I live in the woods and have no place to go, but, yes, I have drinked and drived. I did not kill your brother.
I did not kill your brother
Mr. Lawdog made reference to a certain Mr. Critter. Mr. Critter is a simpleton.
If, for some reason, you ascribe the actions of the simpleton, Mr. Critter to Mr. Lawdog, then you are really screwed up.
Mr. Critter is a simpleton. He discharges a firearm into a group of people, depending on his sense of accuracy to protect him from doing physical harm to the citizens.
Mr. Lawdog is an authoritarion. He thinks that people should be prohibited from doing things that might be dangerous, based on certain assumptions such as the obvious danger of running with scissors.
And he should be prevented from doing so again. And Mr. 0.15BAC who drives down a public roadway, depending on his (alcohol dulled) senses to protect him from doing physical harm to the citizens should also be prevented from doing so again.
LawDog
cropcirclewalker
member
Yes, I am saddened by the socialist, fascist, liberal concept that we, as good little subjects of the all powerful .gov should forsake our freedoms and line ourselves up and take our punishments like good little subjects.
Freedom with responsibility.
Think about it.
Like I said before, so far we have sunk.
The framers would be spinning in their graves. It makes me real sad.
There is no cure, we are screwed.
We are screwed.
It's all over.
We should have stayed as a colony of Great Britain.
George III is snickering in his grave.
Freedom with responsibility.
Think about it.
Like I said before, so far we have sunk.
The framers would be spinning in their graves. It makes me real sad.
There is no cure, we are screwed.
We are screwed.
It's all over.
We should have stayed as a colony of Great Britain.
George III is snickering in his grave.
jashobeam
Member
A bunch of "what-if's" and venting
Also, thank you Grampster.
While there does not exist any logical similarity between DUI and firearm possession, what should be of some concern is that anyone can be stopped without cause. What if you were pulled over for invented reasons on suspicion of DUI, were found to be sober, but to save face or whatever, the LEO actually ticketed you for the contrived violations? And while I was not the victim of racial profiling, I was singled out solely because I was the only car on the road in that area at that time. Social Profiling? I do also know that there had recently been several cars broken into in that area. Maybe that's why I was pulled over. Who knows? Maybe the arresting officer will tell me honestly someday.
Our rights and privacy become less important when in potential conflict with emotionally-charged issues of public concern (Homeland Security for example). What if the public demands to be protected from the wickedness of the privately-owned firearm? The parallel I should have drawn is not that firearm ownership is anything like DUI (at this present time anyway), but that the means that are (or may become) acceptable in preventing us from causing harm to others or ourselves may be similar when applied to either cause (like in the movie Equilibrium).
What will happen if our gullible public votes away its right to bear arms? In a Police State, perhaps the confiscation of all privately owned firearms may be viewed as instrumental in preventing terrible crimes from being committed.
I am not cop bashing. My very good friend is a cop, and it is a profession that I often wished I had pursued myself. Is it not true that, among certain cops and/or in certain agencies, somewhat of a big deal is made for the cop with the most DUI arrests per month (more so at certain times of the year)? It is something that certain officers refer to as a point of pride or seem to use as an indicator of their capability of good police work. This type of thinking appears to be encouraged. DUI is a revenue generator, big time.
We are as a culture being influenced to include alcohol in our fun times. We are also being conditioned to associate alcohol with having fun; nearly every sporting event, including motorsports, is sponsored by a manufacturer of alcohol. Hollywood continues to have its leading men and women smoke cigarettes despite the education and trend against smoking.
In the majority of movies, it is a handgun that saves the day in the hands of an otherwise hopeless and helpless victim. Nevertheless, people fail to be indoctrinated by this particular fantasy and fail to accept that perhaps a gun could save their lives, too. Sorry about the inconsistent theme in this post. I may have tried to make several different points, and in the process, made none.
Again, I will recommend to everyone from the bottom of my heart: Do not drink and drive.
LawDog, you are right. Drunk driving is not the same as merely owning a firearm. I was irresponsibly driving under the influence of alcohol. And who's to say that my arrest didn't save me from a terrible accident in which I may have otherwise been 'destined' to be involved a mile down the road? The truth is that I am still filled with all sorts of conflicting thoughts and emotions. I wish it never happened; I'm glad it happened, as it taught me a lesson. Why'd it happen to me; I'm glad it was me--I'll benefit from it, and hopefully others will too.
Also, thank you Grampster.
While there does not exist any logical similarity between DUI and firearm possession, what should be of some concern is that anyone can be stopped without cause. What if you were pulled over for invented reasons on suspicion of DUI, were found to be sober, but to save face or whatever, the LEO actually ticketed you for the contrived violations? And while I was not the victim of racial profiling, I was singled out solely because I was the only car on the road in that area at that time. Social Profiling? I do also know that there had recently been several cars broken into in that area. Maybe that's why I was pulled over. Who knows? Maybe the arresting officer will tell me honestly someday.
Our rights and privacy become less important when in potential conflict with emotionally-charged issues of public concern (Homeland Security for example). What if the public demands to be protected from the wickedness of the privately-owned firearm? The parallel I should have drawn is not that firearm ownership is anything like DUI (at this present time anyway), but that the means that are (or may become) acceptable in preventing us from causing harm to others or ourselves may be similar when applied to either cause (like in the movie Equilibrium).
What will happen if our gullible public votes away its right to bear arms? In a Police State, perhaps the confiscation of all privately owned firearms may be viewed as instrumental in preventing terrible crimes from being committed.
I am not cop bashing. My very good friend is a cop, and it is a profession that I often wished I had pursued myself. Is it not true that, among certain cops and/or in certain agencies, somewhat of a big deal is made for the cop with the most DUI arrests per month (more so at certain times of the year)? It is something that certain officers refer to as a point of pride or seem to use as an indicator of their capability of good police work. This type of thinking appears to be encouraged. DUI is a revenue generator, big time.
We are as a culture being influenced to include alcohol in our fun times. We are also being conditioned to associate alcohol with having fun; nearly every sporting event, including motorsports, is sponsored by a manufacturer of alcohol. Hollywood continues to have its leading men and women smoke cigarettes despite the education and trend against smoking.
In the majority of movies, it is a handgun that saves the day in the hands of an otherwise hopeless and helpless victim. Nevertheless, people fail to be indoctrinated by this particular fantasy and fail to accept that perhaps a gun could save their lives, too. Sorry about the inconsistent theme in this post. I may have tried to make several different points, and in the process, made none.
Again, I will recommend to everyone from the bottom of my heart: Do not drink and drive.
cropcirclewalker
member
Yes. I agree.
The difference here is; To what extent do we want .gov involved in this whole mess.
Yes, I agree, driving under the influence is a bad thing. Especially in the big city where people live together like rats in a cage, certain freedoms that we in the woods enjoy should not be permitted.
Yes, I agree. If you must live like a rat in a cage then you must obey the 'rat in a cage rules' and yes, you should not drink and drive.
The founders are rolling in their graves.
We are screwed.
Prior restraint sucks and there is no other way to describe it. We have become a socialist country.
Enjoy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked