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.

 

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 12
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

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.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

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.


Murder laws are sufficient to deal with people drink and kill people on the road.

Drunk driving laws are not necessary to charge people with murder.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

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)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

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.


Caring about being free is caring about everyone else.

Because if I am free, so are they.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

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.




Jefferson would kick your ass for applying his words in this situation in the considered context you have used.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
People have so much hatred in them for those who break the same laws that have been made because of how someone they know has died, this is understandable. However, selfishly wishing for someone else to suffer because of this is not justified, I too have seen someone that I know die because of this and went through this process myself. The fact remains that alcohol cannot be prohibited, and people who drink away from their homes will occasionally drive, no matter if there are laws in place to prevent it or not. Something must be done about this though, regardless if we have to provide niceties for people who consume and would drive or not, we have to put the welfare of everyone above our own petty sadistic tendencies. It is not impossible to conceive a plan that would solve this, though it would cost money just like anything else. If we really wanted to solve this, all the money gained from drunk driving fines could be put towards transportation for intoxicated individuals, it would defeat itself.

One thing we cannot do in the process is impose on any of the freedoms of being an American citizen.
edit on 18-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

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...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

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)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

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.


you are proving the OPs point... the laws you are talking about are in effect reguardless of intoxication or not... so why are there laws against driving intoxicated?
edit on 18-12-2010 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

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)


Excellent point DrChuck.
How the hell does your right to drink and drive trump my right to be safe?????



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

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.


Yes, I think if a person kills someone while drunk they should be charged with some form of homicide.

The DUI law is unnecessary in that case.

edit on 18-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

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...


I did not state that being in a motor vehicle is 100% safe. Of course 4000lb metal boxes traveling at velocities upwards of 40mph is dangerous in itself. But a drunk driver increases the danger exponentially. If sober people can get into accidents with their full faculties, imagine the probability of a drunk driver getting into an accident.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   

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.


If someone is put in danger by a drunk, then the drunk should be charged with assault.

DUI laws are not necessary to charge someone with assault.

Of course, an assault charge necessarily must have a specific victim first.


edit on 18-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

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)


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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
There is not one set of laws that fits all. How can part of society be deprived their liberty for the sake of EVERYONE?

Obviously, there needs to be places with laws that permit alternate ideas and behaviors. I would have no problem, in fact prefer it, if my town was not loaded with bars and people not permitted to drink in public places, only on private property or in ther homes.

But I do feel enough people accept drinking and driving as OK and necessary to their pursuit of liberty and happiness. By mandate some places need to permit these behaviors because it is what the people want. These types of laws must be used for nearly everything the people wish to preserve as their right.

It may require relocating to places where specific actions are permitted, or the reverse to live where intolerable behaviors are banned. Where ever there is a minority opinion that a particular freedom should be enjoyed ther must be places to provide that; and again, places where intolerable behaviors prohibited. Desires of all types must be provided a place for.

I urge that drug users be permitted to live among other drug users, drinking drivers among othr drinking drivers, and thieves among thieves, even murderers among murderers; and places where those behaviors are banned. It is a better solution than the jails and prisons systems we have now. Perhaps there are types of criminals who belong in those jails, people who damage others who want no part of them but persist in doing harm. The justice system should be primarily charged with bringing like persons together when it comes to behaviors that others find desireable or intolerable.

Let the JW's knock on each other's doors but stay away from mine.


edit on 18-12-2010 by Erongaricuaro because: typo



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Here`s another one for you Mr. Logic.
I drive a lot, more then most, about 20,000 + miles a year and I see it all.
Today as I was driving safely in the left lane on a highway in Yonkers NY, two cars racing at my estimate of about 130mph. came screaming by me and actually shook my car as they were went by within inches of the passenger side of my car.
They had these piece of crap little Hondas (no offense to Honda, I loved my Accord, great car) and they came up out of nowhere and had to go around me at the last second.
Now I don`t think anyone speeding is necessarily taking my life into their hands but this type of driving on a busy highway at two o~clock in the afternoon was so very stupid, dangerous and risky.
I was going about 60/65, very alert, and I never go past someone more then 5 or 10mph. faster then their speed. Inbetween cars, sure I go a little faster, but I never put someone else at risk. My car is safe, great handling system, and I am a very alert driver who has managed to avoid many accidents (knock on wood).

With your logic, it was completely their right to do this and since they didn`t crash into me I shouln`t be upset.
Truth is, they were probably buzzed from an afternoon holiday party after work (my opinion).
But that`s not the point.
The point is, you don`t put others at risk no matter how much you think you are in control.
My family`s right to live greatly surpasses your right to drive however the hell you want to.
edit on 12/18/2010 by csulli456 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

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.


A right is an action.

Being safe is not an action.

If being safe was a right, the government would have to lock you up in a rubber room protected by the military.

That's the only way to be totally "safe"




top topics



 
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join