Quote:

How is that "Russian Roulette"? When younger, I drove home MANY times drunk, and never once caused harm to anybody or anything...should I be punished for it?

So by this logic I should be allowed to carry a bomb on an airplane, especially if I sneak one on the first time and then after a successful landing show it to everyone as proof that I am safe with a bomb on an airplane.

No guys, comsuming more than the legal limit of alcohol and driving is putting yourself in a situation where your judgement is impaired and where others stand a very good chance of suffering from your impairment.

We either need laws along the lines of the ones we have or, if you are driving drunk and cause a wreck and injure someone we lock you up for a very long time and, if you kill someone you get the death penalty.

Flap

So what is drunk? I guess we need an arbitrary number, a BAC that seems to decrease every year. The state says you're drunk. Pay up! Pay up! Which is what this all about.

Quote:

if you are driving drunk and cause a wreck and injure someone we lock you up for a very long time and, if you kill someone you get the death penalty.

I have no problem with harsh punishment, for when you cause harm.

Quote:

No guys, comsuming more than the legal limit of alcohol and driving is putting yourself in a situation where your judgement is impaired and where others stand a very good chance of suffering from your impairment.

First...give me a hard definition of "legal limit of alcohol"...you know, as well as everyone here, that the number is absolute BULL****.

Additionally, you could say the same about someone who's never driven, getting behind the wheel and driving around...they don't need to be impaired to be dangerous...but IT'S STILL THEIR RIGHT. Or a person who knows nothing about guns, buying one and walking around with it. Again, it's their RIGHT to do so.

I'll ask again...which are you?

Quote:

Have you turned in your guns? You CANNOT support DUI laws, without being either a gun-grabber or a hypocrite.

Quote:

So by this logic I should be allowed to carry a bomb on an airplane, especially if I sneak one on the first time and then after a successful landing show it to everyone as proof that I am safe with a bomb on an airplane.

Not if the owner of the airplane disagrees. Besides, your analogy is conflating two disparate issues: 1) the right to freely travel the highways, with 2) the right to contract for service. Regarding the latter, imagine two airlines. One allows bombs on the plane while the other does not. Which one gets your business?

Quote:

No guys, comsuming more than the legal limit of alcohol and driving is putting yourself in a situation where your judgement is impaired and where others stand a very good chance of suffering from your impairment.

No, it's still a very small chance that DD will cause suffering.

Quote:

We either need laws along the lines of the ones we have or, if you are driving drunk and cause a wreck and injure someone we lock you up for a very long time and, if you kill someone you get the death penalty.

The former is the same as your prior argument. The latter has been the position of the counter-argument. Glad to see you opening up to the latter.

The current direction of DUI laws is to convict and punish someone as if they had killed someone. Nooooooooo , they were caught impaired and should have some punishment. Progressive punishment to stop the transgression.

Once the offender actually damages something or injures someone then I agree that it is time to make the punishment much more severe.

Until then ...........he swerved a little ...........he didnt come to a complete 100% stop .......his lights were not on........and the officer pulled him over and found out he was impaired.

The mania started back in the old days when you could be caught 100 times DUI and still have a driving license after paying a small fine. Sometimes property damage was part of the rap sheet too. The problem was that the laws were not enforced properly nor with progressive punishments....and then..............


Mommy got involved !!! She or one of her brood was harmed and by God everyone .....every ****ing one of them ..........was gonna PAY !!!

That is what is driving DUI laws. Mindlessness. But Mommy feels good , the politician feels good when he gets her vote ............ and who cares if the abusive law is mal applied without reason ?

I believe in laws and the rule of law. I believe in the punishment of DUI but not as it is now being applied. There is a bigger issue here and DUI is simply the poster child for that bigger issue. That bigger issue is how people want laws , more complex laws , more more more..........bigger , more harsh laws because ......I WAS INJURED GADDAMN IT AND I WANT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE TO ****ING PAY !!!

It is all about me.

Jesus.



Man is this post gonna***** people off. The truth hurts dont it ?

"for the children"

/sarc

Coondog ace post.

This thread is yet more evidence...women should not vote.

Flappingeagle wrote..

No guys, comsuming more than the legal limit of alcohol and driving is putting yourself in a situation where your judgement is impaired and where others stand a very good chance of suffering from your impairment.

So how about eating. Drinking non alcoholic beverages? Inserting a CD, looking at GPS, changing the radio? Feeding or entertaining the child in the back seat? Talking to others in the car?

How about when you are tired? How about when you drive with one hand or with 2 hands at the non-optimal 3 and 9 position or with your knee?

All subject to loss of license and fines and imprisonment ? Right?

How about my car can probably out break 99% of the cars on the road. Why should i suffer getting rear ended in a panic stop situation because other irresponsible people did not equip their cars with good equipment?

So how about we mandate sticky "summer" tires that must be switched out as the seasons change. In effect we ban every "all season" tire as they are not great at anything.

Lets add in squealy high friction brake pad material. So now your brakes squeal and dust like crazy, and your tires last 8-10k miles. And you must have at least 2 different sets per car.

If you don't have those things you goto jail as the very act of driving your vehicle endangers everyone else.

How about we mandate an HANS device, and helmet, racing seats a 5 point harnesses for everyone. Mandate a full cage for the car. Hair gets messed up? So what. You want to be safe.

So now you have uncomfortable seats and the interior of your car has metal tubes running through it and its a PITA to get in and out of. But that will surely increase survival chances - especially in a roll over as the roof wont collapse. And since you know you can't compensate anyone that is dead that is a good thing, right ?

So this is something you are definitely in favor of right ?

How about if you ever get stuck in the snow you goto jail pay 10k in fines and lose your license as it is clear your vehicle does not have enough grip to safely navigate the roads. But you irresponsibly chose to drive it and put everyone else in danger.

You are good with all of this right ?

Somehow i Fukking Doubt It.

Just eat a few of those legal xanax before driving instead.

Quote:

The mania started back in the old days when you could be caught 100 times DUI and still have a driving license after paying a small fine. Sometimes property damage was part of the rap sheet too. The problem was that the laws were not enforced properly nor with progressive punishments....and then..............

This is some truth! Back in the old days a person who killed someone while DUI would have already had 5,6,7,8,... stops for DUI would still be on the road, all the way until someone else died. Anecdotally, it seemed like the drunk would usually survive...

That, is what got MADD started, the re-re-re-re-re-repeat offender who killed someone.

Flap

Drunks more often survive all sorts of accidents because they don't stiffen up, they stay limp and flexible.

booo fukking hooo Flappingeagle.

that has nothing to do with current DUI laws.

And MADD? They are disguising people who wrap up prohibition in the cloak of its for the children.

Show me someone in MADD and i'll show you someone who has their platform wave down pat. **** those *******s

We lost 3 men where I work in the last 2 weeks from accidents involving motorcycles...I know in fact that 2 of them were because some ****ING moron turned in front of them...

...say, where is the OUTRAGE over actual deaths? OOOOOOOHHHHHH that's ****ING RIGHT, there is not any massive cash fines involved...OOOPSIE! I did not see him. Tee****ingHEE.

How bout it? 15K in BULL**** fines for being over an arbitrary limit on a BAC with NO DAMAGES TO ANYONE...vs. actual corpses bleeding on the road.

AGAIN, it's all bout the moronic MAD vote, funding, and the sweet sweet cash machine from DUI.

Hypocrites, Imbeciles, and Liars...every one.

Killed someone on the road 'cause you cut them off? Hey, how about you have to retest for your DL and then all is just fin cherry?

Quote:

State troopers said a car traveling south on North Pike just before 6 p.m. turned left at the intersection and into the path of Mr. Barger's motorcycle. He and his wife, Kathleen Barger, were thrown to the road.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca....

But hey, we haven't yet figured out how to monetize these types of things...give us time.

Quote:

Drunks more often survive all sorts of accidents because they don't stiffen up, they stay limp and flexible.

And this is precisely why I drink a White Russian every 30 minutes while I'm driving.

Raftermanfmj, did you read the study I linked?

I can understand both sides of the argument. What I have trouble buying is the way it is enforced. I understand one must draw a line somewhere, but where? is the question. It can be different for each individual. The part that sticks in my craw is arresting people and punishing them for a crime they might commit. I have a good friend who got a DUI for sleeping it off in his car in the parking lot of the bar. When the cops rapped on the window he was passed out in the front seat with the radio going. The car was not running, the key was turned backwards so the radio would play. 2 nights in jail, thousands in legal fees, and his insurance doubled. All for sleeping while drunk on private property.

Quote:

Raftermanfmj, did you read the study I linked?

Yup. Common sense really. There has been nor will there by any society that survives giving women the franchise. The logic is in fact, inescapable. If you are over 25 you know this. Deal.

Read a study years ago where they compared the increase in social spending after women were allowed to vote...using state data as women were allowed to vote. Women were allowed to vote at the state level before ratification of the 19th amendment.

As women were allowed to vote, social spending skyrocketed. I've no time to truck with people who dispute this...it's true historically and makes sense logically.

Yet another impact of the progressives.

Allowing women, public employees, those on the public dole and the unemployed to vote will FOREVER lead to the destruction of your nation. The logic chain, the reasons are not hard to suss out.

Now the women on this board I'm sure will doth protest...but really the women posting here are a far cut above the average as far as politics and history goes....and EVEN SO, a large percentage of them encourage policies that are inimical to libertarian policies and freedom in general. Just a fact.

Democracy is another name for Socialistic theft, and once you cheapen the vote you grease the skids on the funhouse ride to destruction, tyranny and dissolution.

But remember it's all a show, and keep 'em laughin' as you go...

@ iamedwardteach

part of the problem, to me, is that concepts like 'drunk' and 'impaired' are subjective, so the bar is set where a 80 lb teetotaler would be hammered. i would think that 'reckless' driving would cover all of this, or should be able to. if you are operating your car in a way that (subjectively, yes, but we need an umpire somewhere) is dangerous to others should be the bar. the reason why you are a danger - drunk, tired, texting, playing air-guitar, picking up girls on mr. microphone - shouldn't matter.

There is no fuggin hope. Lowbeyond is almost the only one on this forum who "gets it."
There is no fuggin hope...

What would be a better deterrent?

I don't like how things have reached the point of not being allowed to sleep it off in your car.

Quote:

The part that sticks in my craw is arresting people and punishing them for a crime they might commit. I have a good friend who got a DUI for sleeping it off in his car in the parking lot of the bar. When the cops rapped on the window he was passed out in the front seat with the radio going. The car was not running, the key was turned backwards so the radio would play. 2 nights in jail, thousands in legal fees, and his insurance doubled. All for sleeping while drunk on private property.

I agree that getting a DUI for sleeping it off in the parking lot is bull****. I believe, but am not sure, that most states require you to have the keys to the car to get that treatment. Whether they do or not, just being in a car and drunk should not get you a DUI, you are not driving.

That though is the same creep that happened with seat belt laws. At first it was only going to be a secondary offense... that lasted about as long as we all thought it would.

Flap

Quote:

I don't like how things have reached the point of not being allowed to sleep it off in your car

It's.All.About.The.SweetSweet.Revenue!

Grok that!

It has NOTHING to do at this point with reducing traffic fatalities...and as long as the bobble headed soccer moms can, and do, vote it will continue to get worse.

Likely you'll be able to get a DUI on a hammock or a trampoline next year.

And then there is this angle...

Quote:

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957) {WMail Issue #23}[/q}

That's completely on-point.

It all boils down to an extra tax-grab. As states and municipalities run out of funds, expect more and more encroachment on your private life. They'd tax the air we breathe if they could.

Quote:

They'd tax the air we breathe if they could

Already floated taxing the water you draw from your well, the vegetables you grow in your garden and preventing you from cisterning the water that falls on your property.

Gonna get U.G.L.Y.

Tell me about it, Rafter. Used to run my own dairy - fresh goat's milk and eggs. It was a dream come true... until Uncle Cheese showed up, wanting his cut.