User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 8:28:41 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuckit I dot care anymre Put everyone inb a 5 poiht racinbg harbess abd let everyone go all marioakart and shit. every post I see of yours reads like you are drunk. avatar is appropriate. and telling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 8:29:25 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I look at drunk drivers like I do pedophiles. They won't stop until someone else stops them. Sounds about right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 8:44:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Revoking licenses won't keep them from driving. Now if states passed a law that says anyone who is accused of DUII gets the vehicle they were driving seized and held pending out come of the charge (REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT) then people would be much more careful. They take it as forfeiture here if you're the registered owner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 11:43:27 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They take it as forfeiture here if you're the registered owner. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Revoking licenses won't keep them from driving. Now if states passed a law that says anyone who is accused of DUII gets the vehicle they were driving seized and held pending out come of the charge (REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT) then people would be much more careful. They take it as forfeiture here if you're the registered owner.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:10:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they don't care about driving drunk, do you really think they will care about driving without a license? Kind of like gun free zones |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:19:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they don't care about driving drunk, do you really think they will care about driving without a license? Yep. But driving without a vehicle would get their attention. Italy: From 0.05% to 0.08% (€500-2000 fine, 3–6 months license suspension), from 0.08% to 0.15% (aggravated, €800-3200 fine, 6–12 months license suspension, up to 6 months imprisonment), over 0.15% (aggravated, €1500-6000 fine, 1–2 years license suspension, 6 to 12 months imprisonment, vehicle seizure and confiscation). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:22:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
We got that shit in Florida. Ruining too many innocent lives. Other states should follow suit. I'd have to say that it depends--first time without any injuries or damage, no, just fines and remedial training and mandatory alcohol training. Second offense? Take it away for a period. Six months maybe (assuming no injuries or property damage.) Third offense? Permanent revocation. You can't, nor should have, "once size fits all " punishments mandated for something that has a number of variables. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:25:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about people that crash out in the back seat? I know a few that got DUIs because they had their keys in their pockets and therefore "had the ability" to drive it. Or a kid that had a few and wanted to sit on someones bike? (The keys were in the ignition and cops nailed the kid. Las Vegas cops were some real shit heals.) If pulled over? Nail the dip shits. If it's someone else's car, they can pay the impound fee as a reminder to be a little more discriminating about to whom they loan their car. This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:26:16 PM EDT
[#9]
I know plenty of people that have or currently drive without a license. All it is is a piece of plastic that makes your life easier when you get pulled over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:51:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, yes, sort of. Laws only work on the law abiding, correct? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You could say that for all laws then. Well, yes, sort of. Laws only work on the law abiding, correct? Sure. Why have laws then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:01:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about people that crash out in the back seat? I know a few that got DUIs because they had their keys in their pockets and therefore "had the ability" to drive it. Or a kid that had a few and wanted to sit on someones bike? (The keys were in the ignition and cops nailed the kid. Las Vegas cops were some real shit heals.) If pulled over? Nail the dip shits. If it's someone else's car, they can pay the impound fee as a reminder to be a little more discriminating about to whom they loan their car. This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. I was living in Reno when that law was passed in Nevada, and the cops immediately started using it to generate revenue. Best I recall it was referred to as "in or about a vehicle" at that time. There was a local air race pilot who was popped for his second DUI for sitting in his car listening to the radio while in his own driveway; he hadn't been driving and wasn't intending to drive anywhere. Didn't stop the system from doing what they could to wreck his life though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:17:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
We got that shit in Florida. Ruining too many innocent lives. Other states should follow suit. some states DUI regulations are too low. you could get popped for one beer in some circumstances. I would say perm loss of license after a SECOND DUI. however, considering the lack of will we seem to have with enforcing licenses with illegals, I have no doubt that we'd end up with another class of unlicensed drivers out there just waiting for an accident to run from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:46:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What about people that crash out in the back seat? I know a few that got DUIs because they had their keys in their pockets and therefore "had the ability" to drive it. Or a kid that had a few and wanted to sit on someones bike? (The keys were in the ignition and cops nailed the kid. Las Vegas cops were some real shit heals.) If pulled over? Nail the dip shits. If it's someone else's car, they can pay the impound fee as a reminder to be a little more discriminating about to whom they loan their car. This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. As an officer, I've never understood this either. I think perhaps our law was written to cover the latter types you mentioned, but I also believe it casts too wide a net. Of course, in my own cases, that's where officer discretion comes into play. "Too much to drink and you're gonna sleep it off in the car? Give me your keys and I'll give you a ride home, and you can get your keys tomorrow when you're sober." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:48:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. Why have laws then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could say that for all laws then. Well, yes, sort of. Laws only work on the law abiding, correct? Sure. Why have laws then? To keep the honest people honest? Complete lawlessness is not desirable either. Like most things the correct answer is not in the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. Is driving under the influence a bad behavior that should be punished? Sure, absolutely. But, good people make mistakes, so I'd go with smack 'em hard enough to hurt on the first DUI, with revocation and possible jail time on the 2nd. First DUI and involved in an accident where someone is hurt? Go directly to jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:49:14 PM EDT
[#15]
First offense with no injury or property damage involved?
Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:51:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As an officer, I've never understood this either. I think perhaps our law was written to cover the latter types you mentioned, but I also believe it casts too wide a net. Of course, in my own cases, that's where officer discretion comes into play. "Too much to drink and you're gonna sleep it off in the car? Give me your keys and I'll give you a ride home, and you can get your keys tomorrow when you're sober." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about people that crash out in the back seat? I know a few that got DUIs because they had their keys in their pockets and therefore "had the ability" to drive it. Or a kid that had a few and wanted to sit on someones bike? (The keys were in the ignition and cops nailed the kid. Las Vegas cops were some real shit heals.) If pulled over? Nail the dip shits. If it's someone else's car, they can pay the impound fee as a reminder to be a little more discriminating about to whom they loan their car. This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. As an officer, I've never understood this either. I think perhaps our law was written to cover the latter types you mentioned, but I also believe it casts too wide a net. Of course, in my own cases, that's where officer discretion comes into play. "Too much to drink and you're gonna sleep it off in the car? Give me your keys and I'll give you a ride home, and you can get your keys tomorrow when you're sober." Unfortunately, officer discretion can come back and bite the officer too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:56:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unfortunately, officer discretion can come back and bite the officer too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What about people that crash out in the back seat? I know a few that got DUIs because they had their keys in their pockets and therefore "had the ability" to drive it. Or a kid that had a few and wanted to sit on someones bike? (The keys were in the ignition and cops nailed the kid. Las Vegas cops were some real shit heals.) If pulled over? Nail the dip shits. If it's someone else's car, they can pay the impound fee as a reminder to be a little more discriminating about to whom they loan their car. This has never made sense to me. A driver is actually attempting to do the right thing by not getting behind the wheel and driving. "Sleep it off in the back seat" should be encouraged as long as it is not the "sleeping it off in the back seat of a car that has been run up someone's yard and into their living room" type. As an officer, I've never understood this either. I think perhaps our law was written to cover the latter types you mentioned, but I also believe it casts too wide a net. Of course, in my own cases, that's where officer discretion comes into play. "Too much to drink and you're gonna sleep it off in the car? Give me your keys and I'll give you a ride home, and you can get your keys tomorrow when you're sober." Unfortunately, officer discretion can come back and bite the officer too. Very true. It has at my agency in the past. Several years before I started here, an officer stopped somebody who was borderline DUI. Called a friend to pick him up, and gave the keys to the friend and had them park the truck in a parking lot. Half an hour later, guess who gets into a crash a mile away from where the truck was left. As soon as the officer left the scene, the friend looped the block and dropped the drunk off to drive home. He then promptly flipped his truck into a ditch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 3:01:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very true. It has at my agency in the past. Several years before I started here, an officer stopped somebody who was borderline DUI. Called a friend to pick him up, and gave the keys to the friend and had them park the truck in a parking lot. Half an hour later, guess who gets into a crash a mile away from where the truck was left. As soon as the officer left the scene, the friend looped the block and dropped the drunk off to drive home. He then promptly flipped his truck into a ditch. This one from my neck of the woods sticks out in my mind. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-15/news/ct-met-0515-chicago-heights-lawsuit-20100515_1_police-officer-chicago-heights-police-department-fatal-accident |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 4:48:04 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, driving is not a right if you're going to use roads paid for by taxes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
driving is a right anyway revoking driver's license for DUI on a bicycle, lawnmower or something is out of line. It happens lol, driving is not a right if you're going to use roads paid for by taxes. That's a ridiculous but rather modern notion. It would have been a rather offensive notion earlier in the history of this country when traveling freely as one pleases was regarded as a right and not a privilege subject to the whims of the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 5:06:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have the right to travel, but not necessarily by car... Im fine proving competency to drive/know lawx regardin driving. I think there needs to be a 3-strikes type of system. First time, 6 month suspensio, second time, 1 yr, third time, lifetime ba. Being stupid should hurt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think driver's licenses should exist. I agree with this as well. The right to travel freely was honoured for a long time in this country, but no more apparently. It is unfortunate that the proponents of state controul over our lives have been highly effective at getting people to accept the idea of "driving is a privilege, not a right." You have the right to travel, but not necessarily by car... Im fine proving competency to drive/know lawx regardin driving. I think there needs to be a 3-strikes type of system. First time, 6 month suspensio, second time, 1 yr, third time, lifetime ba. Being stupid should hurt. The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 6:22:19 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think driver's licenses should exist. I agree with this as well. The right to travel freely was honoured for a long time in this country, but no more apparently. It is unfortunate that the proponents of state controul over our lives have been highly effective at getting people to accept the idea of "driving is a privilege, not a right." You have the right to travel, but not necessarily by car... Im fine proving competency to drive/know lawx regardin driving. I think there needs to be a 3-strikes type of system. First time, 6 month suspensio, second time, 1 yr, third time, lifetime ba. Being stupid should hurt. The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. He'd probably state the 2A covers ARs in the same breath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 6:54:18 AM EDT
[#22]
In for the professional drunk driving excuses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 7:01:27 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a member here that got a DUI because he was drinking beer while operating a tractor in his own field. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I knew a guy who got a DUI for sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a hotel. 
ETA: it was a party at the hotel, he didn't randomly pull into one while drunk. I knew a kid busted for DUI cause he had the keys in the ignition to play the radio. Kid wasn't even in the car, engine wasn't running. We have a member here that got a DUI because he was drinking beer while operating a tractor in his own field. There must be more to that story. What circumstance brought the cop to the field? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 7:10:40 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think driver's licenses should exist. I agree with this as well. The right to travel freely was honoured for a long time in this country, but no more apparently. It is unfortunate that the proponents of state controul over our lives have been highly effective at getting people to accept the idea of "driving is a privilege, not a right." You have the right to travel, but not necessarily by car... Im fine proving competency to drive/know lawx regardin driving. I think there needs to be a 3-strikes type of system. First time, 6 month suspensio, second time, 1 yr, third time, lifetime ba. Being stupid should hurt. The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. you do have the right to drive a car without restrictions. a 5 year old can go out today and buy a car at any dealship and drive it as much as he likes. just not on a public roadway. if you want to travel on the public roadway there are rules to follow to provide for the safety of everyone using it. you know that other people have rights too...right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2014 5:49:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In for the professional drunk driving excuses. The texting drivers are far more hilarious to listen too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 1:53:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The texting drivers are far more hilarious to listen too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In for the professional drunk driving excuses. The texting drivers are far more hilarious to listen too. texting isnt illegal though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 1:54:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'd probably state the 2A covers ARs in the same breath. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think driver's licenses should exist. I agree with this as well. The right to travel freely was honoured for a long time in this country, but no more apparently. It is unfortunate that the proponents of state controul over our lives have been highly effective at getting people to accept the idea of "driving is a privilege, not a right." You have the right to travel, but not necessarily by car... Im fine proving competency to drive/know lawx regardin driving. I think there needs to be a 3-strikes type of system. First time, 6 month suspensio, second time, 1 yr, third time, lifetime ba. Being stupid should hurt. The right to travel freely can entail both where you go and how you get yourself there. The idea that one loses the right because they choose modern conveyances is one borne out of an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. He'd probably state the 2A covers ARs in the same breath. 2nd A covers machine guns and silencers and anti tank weapons since they are in common usage since forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 2:28:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
texting isnt illegal though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In for the professional drunk driving excuses. The texting drivers are far more hilarious to listen too. texting isnt illegal though. It's illegal in about three quarters of the states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 3:03:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2nd A covers machine guns and silencers and anti tank weapons since they are in common usage since forever. You are not tracking me. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
