It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1
You are the most arrogant ick that starts with a d that I have ever heard spew this crap.
Being mad at me because you are losing the logical argument does not change anything.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by RSF77
An even better idea would be to let the public keep their money and deregulate taxis.
Thus, taxi prices would fall and people could more easily afford cab fare.
No one takes the bus out in the country.
Great point. If we really wanted to stop drunk driving, free taxis would be key. I understand where you're coming from. BUT. We CAN NOT tolerate drunk drivers killing people.
And trust me. I'm a double offender. But, thank GOD I didn't kill anyone. THAT is the biggest deterent for me. Not any laws.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Originally posted by csulli456
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1
You are the most arrogant ick that starts with a d that I have ever heard spew this crap.
Being mad at me because you are losing the logical argument does not change anything.
I`m only mad at you because you are all for being free and not caring about anyone else.
I`m mad at you because in your mind the drunk driver should only be stopped after he kills/harms someone.
What if I manufactured a gun that shot straight most of the time but every so often shot sideways and killed the next guy at the target range? Would it still be ok to use this gun with no ill intent?
You`re right, I am mad at you.
Maybe one day you`ll have kids and you`ll rethink your whole logic.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1
It is your perception of "right" that is so wrong.
Operating potentially deadly machinery however the hell you want, only because you have no desire to harm anyone does not make it your right.
When the possibility exists for danger, precautions must be made.
Your understandings of free society are very immature.
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Swerving over the line does not constitute a threat, nor does driving too fast, driving too slow, or any other things drunks do unless those actions induce a threat to another specific person.
If they do induce a threat, then the driver should be charge with assault, not drunk driving.
We have assault laws for a reason.
Originally posted by DrChuck
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Exactly! According to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. Why are you discounting anothers right to be safe?
Originally posted by DrChuck
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Exactly! According to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. Why are you discounting anothers right to be safe?
Originally posted by redgy
they may not constitute a threat unless someone complains, but a driver can still get charged with such violation as dangerous driving in those circumstances, even if you are intoxicated or not. road rules are road rules, there are reasons behind these laws as well.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
We have laws against murder.
Murder laws are good.
I'm talking about DUI laws, not murder.
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by mnemeth1
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Exactly! According to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. Why are you discounting anothers right to be safe?edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by mnemeth1
We have laws against murder.
Murder laws are good.
I'm talking about DUI laws, not murder.
So how would you constitute driving drunk and killing someone? First degree murder? As YOU KNOW YOU ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY WHILE DRINKING AND DRIVING?
Definately first degree murder, worth life in prison.
So, according to you I would have "murdered" someone, that is what I would deserve.
Originally posted by kalisdad
Originally posted by DrChuck
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Exactly! According to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. Why are you discounting anothers right to be safe?
if you seriously believe that you are safe in any motor vehicle at any time with 0 drunk drivers on the road, you are sadly mistaken
more accidents are caused by sober people than drunk people...
now this is due mostly from the fact that there are many more sober people on the road at any given time than there are drunk people, but regardless... being in a moving vehicle of any kind, during any time of day, is the most hazardous thing that one does in life...
Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by mnemeth1
I'm definately against all victimless crimes, but having lived in New Orleans where there are drive-thru Daquiri bars and a week where the entire city gets pissed, I can vouch for the usefulness of this law. There is a great likelyhood that when your drunk that you will crash. Driving drunk is also really hard. I can hardly play a driving game at an arcade drunk, let alone drive a 1000 lb hunk of momentum at 50 mph. It's an accident waiting to happen and just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Stupidity that puts people in danger isn't a victimless crime. That's like saying a guy who runs around a mall waving a handgun at people shouldn't be arrested because no one was hurt. I would be all for lowering the fines for people drunk driving themselves, but if they have passengers or kids, they can go to prison for all I care.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by DrChuck
My definition of right comes from Jefferson.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Exactly! According to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. Why are you discounting anothers right to be safe?
You do not have a "right" to be safe.
You have a "right" to defend yourself.
You have a "right" to buy a safe car, to not drive, to take the bus, etc..
You have a "right" to seek justice against those who have caused you harm.
The government has no authority to create victimless crimes.
edit on 18-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DrChuck
I don't have a right to be safe? Yet you have the right to drive drunk and endanger lives?
I do have the "right" to be safe.
.
My "right" to defend myself, is merely an extension and augmentation of my "right" to be safe.
Without the "right" to be safe, the "right" to defend oneself would be pointless and unjustified.